MdB

Didn’t quite understand did we? Yes Canon make ‘ok’ mirrorless cameras by largely copying what else was around. Their first attempt at a mirrorless camera was woeful.

Completely disagree, the X1D is a perfect example of how these things aren’t immediate and instant for a company with no experience in a particular market. Its like the constant pundits who think that because Canon make great DSLRs they’ll make great mirrorless cameras right off the bat, first go. They simply don’t. Nobody has. Not one company. Leica probably got closest with the SL, but that probably came with a lot of experience from Panasonic. The X1D is a very interesting product and another generation or two and it will be a really serious contender.

Not sure disliking the Sony makes the M50 better. Have you used the M50? It’s worse than anything I’ve ever used, by a long, long way. I’ve used most of the Sony’s at one point or another and they are WAY better. Canon automatically having better ergonomics is total BS, repeated as a trope or discussion point from those with nothing to contribute. Well the 1DC is how old now? It was the first 4K DSLR. It’s 1080p surely could have trickled down by now, especially as the M50 actually represents their best current 1080p outside of a C series. Well if that’s the case I think you’ll love the M50. Honestly to my eye it’s one of the only Canon’s not to have unusable 1080p. Which is such a shame as their really good cameras have a really good image. They just don’t do much in the entry level. M50 is a step in the right direction. Couple other (hopefully) interesting observations: M50 is the first non-camcorder to use a compressed H.264 codec for their 4K. The XF400 also does similar and from a similar era. This is probably the single biggest leap, really if the 5D IV did this (crop and all) I’d definitely have one right now. I would have had one for ages. So that’s going to be a big deal. Second is the M50 outputs a (somewhat) clean 4K through the HDMI AFAICT. This again is new. The 5DIV and 1DX II don’t, their max is 1080p. I say it is ‘somewhat’ clean in that the displays are overlayed and it is the only output when used (no EVF or monitor). These aren’t things I’ve had to worry about for years, kind of took me wayyyyyy back. The touch screen is obviously not active when you use a monitor then. Also the only way to get a ‘clean’ output is to turn all the displays off AND the AF, otherwise you’re going to have crud all over the display. On the plus side though the 4K HDMI output is rather nice. But if you want to use the 1080p and DPAF, then don’t bother. I think the M5 II that is rumoured to be coming will be a lot of things this isn’t. I still think the quirky and poorly planned aspects of this camera carry through the entire line. But a few extra dials, less RS and less crop will be an absolute winner. Canon are on the cusp of finally, finally doing 4K well in the consumer category.

All your normal UWA zooms too, like Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and 14-20mm f/2 etc. Plus the wider ones like Sigma 8-16mm. Those Rokinons are all awesome, have had the 12/2, 21/1.4, 35/1.2 and 50/1.2. The 21/1.4 is the weakest, but still fantastic. I wouldn't call it a 'good' 1080p camera, just slightly better than some previous Canons. I also wouldn't be giving the 'ergonomics' nod to the M50 either, it's kind of junk in every possible way. ML could be really, really interesting! How about a lens with IS? Seems like a good start to me. New Blackmagic Pocket 4K should be good to go without major rigging IMO. Fuji, the X-T2 is a lot cheaper. But yes the Fujis are a bit lacking. Canon, yep pretty much only cinema line (for now). GH5... nah. Although focus issues are probably around the 4K modes more so than the 1080p. Sony's don't overheat in 1080p (or haven't for a VERY long time now). In Sony the best options for nice 1080p are the A7S (original is cheap as these days and still produces stunning 1080p) and the A6000 (still better than the A6300/A6500) and the A7 III is pretty darn good (and really good 24/25/30/50/60/100/120p modes throughout). Personally though, the C100 is still one of the best, if not best if you want just really nice 1080p. Plus it has all the other benefits and as other have mentioned is reasonably small when the handle it removed, but you don't want to go without the side handle. How about the little box camera Canon make for industrial purposes based on the C100 II? Looks awesome for drones and gimbals and stuff too. Nobody talks about it. I want to say MS20 something... Me either. I own the camera and has been nothing but regret. It's not nice. There is very little I can say about it that is good. I'd be happy enough with the guts of the XF400 in the XC10/15 body. They are kind of from the same family. But the newer sensor has DPAF and 4K60 and 120fps 1080 etc. The XF400 actually kind of looks like it fits your needs. Only downside for me on that camera is lack of C-Log (but does have Wide DR). I would be surprisingly ok with that. Canon have nothing in their range below the C200, except the underpowered XC10/15. An updated version of those that sits between would be wonderful. In fact RED threatened for years to produce something like that and never did. C200 is quite a bit bigger than C200. C100 MkI to MkII is nominal at best, the EVF pokes out a lot more on the MkII. Are you thinking of the C300 / C500? Yes please! In fact let's not really bring anything from the M50 except maybe the processing to finally get Canon files into smallish codecs (straight to cheap SD cards). Oh and the nice 4K output on the M50 please. Where did the lens go? That doesn't look right.

That is super interesting. It also means that IPB codec options are available on it. Plus I think this has a lot to do with the improved colour compared to the M3/M5/M6 etc (which were not great). It was fairly easy to adapt manual lens designs to PDAF in SLRs. This made the transition really very easy (for pretty much everyone). Going mirrorless is however a completely different design requirements and is far less easy. On the other hand Canon are relying on you adapting their existing lenses. TELL ME ABOUT IT! I bought the M50 in a bit of desperation, honestly it is rubbish. It is probably the worst camera I have ever purchased (taken in context). BUT there are some nice things Canon COULD be doing if they wanted to. I think the next batch of Canon APS-C is going to be fairly interesting. Nope, definitely in different classes. Yep Yep Sure, although you can do the same thing on Sony. Uhm, no... Have you used it? Sounds like a typical throw away comment. Colour yes. Ergonomics... yeah no. Really isn't. It is maybe serviceable as a home movies type camera (the AF helps there too). Compared to what? Yes it is definitely better than say my 7D II (which I would never use for video). The DPAF is a little better as well. Yep. The 1DC S35 (and 1080p out) are a world away from the M50. It's ok. It's better than older Canon 1080p mush. The RS really is just unusable IMO in the 4K mode. Hopefully their next outing will be faster in this regard and maintain the DPAF. Because the footage IMO is actually very nice looking, it's just unusable.

This has what to do with sensor design? Fanboys...

*sigh* From DPR: "The D850 was able to tolerate an additional 1/3EV of light (not the 2/3 that its ISO 64 rating would imply), but the difference is essentially invisible, even after fairly extreme processing. This puts the a7R III's performance up with the very best cameras on the market at present, including the likes of the Fujifilm GFX 50S or Pentax 645Z." Essentially invisible... That is unless your a little Nikon fanboy. Wanna explain how you're a 'real' photographer again? They not giving you enough 'likes' on your FB photos? Poor, poor Eric. I think this Anti-Sony disease that all Nikon users are born with would suggest otherwise. Nope. I know exactly what they 'design'. Go ask Phase One or Hasselblad who aren't too 'proud' to tell the truth.

Me too. Missed out on one twice and nearly missed this one. Got it as basically new condition for less than an equivalent 1DX - Pretty stoked. Honestly the C100 is still a very very viable camera. WAY more practical than a 1DC in my experience of both. I thought I would have a C100 and a 1DC for those times that I really needed the special look and that's probably what I'll end up with. I sold my MkI with the plan to buy a MkII just for the better viewfinder and the DPAF upgrade plus the 50/60p. But it hasn't happened yet. I still miss it, a lot. The 1DC in my opinion does not have as a nice output in the S35 mode, it's nice but not C100 nice. The 1080p out of the HDMI using the 4K mode IS better. BUT then you either need monsterous CF cards or you miss out on dual record you get on the C100. The 4K is very nice, I haven't given it that much of a workout. But man that output going to my new BM Video Assist 5" (which is a perfect match for this camera IMO) is nice and has a lot of flexibility in post. Pretty bad rolling shutter in that mode though, unlike the S35 and C100. C100 just looks SO good with such natural motion with great rolling shutter. Add XLRs, NDs, EVF, mounting points, full sized HDMI, amazing grip, top handle, perfect size and controls AND DPAF. C100 (I or II) is a better tool. 1DC is a great stills camera with some really lovely video output when absolutely needed.

Mate, READ the article. I don't need to do anything of the things you sugggest because it is literally there in black and white. The guy writing the article even says he doesn't know enough technically to understand some actually pretty simple things. The whole situation was CREATED by the Nikon PR team. He states specific technologies as being used in Nikon sensors, but doesn't state that that technology COMES from Nikon or even has anything to do with Nikon (other than its appearance in the sensors they happen to use). When he does explicitly state Nikon have some actual input, guess what it is about?! Packaging and sensor toppings. Just read it again. I mean how long does he go on about LVDS as if it is 'special' to Nikon, just because they happen to use it? Im frankly stunned at just how literally people seem to be reading it. Dominant readings all day everyday from the fanboys who already believed it, but just needed that 'credible' article to prove it was all true. You stand there and defend it, but you haven't once been able to answer any of my questions. No, that's an assumed benefit. It's actually considerably less than that. With a greater loss in high ISO. According to whom? Yes, that is what happened. He wrote about a bunch of things Nikon have in their sensors, many of which have nothing to do with Nikon, but the way it is written assumes that it does. He writes about LVDS as if it were a Nikon thing, solely for Nikon sensors. Which is either poor writing, or the guy actually didn't know any better. So which is it? Doesn't really matter. The point is there is nothing in the article that points specifically to Nikon actually having much say about anything in the 'design' process. Just a lot of jargon about the amazing technology Nikon uses (thanks mainly to the underlying Sony base designs).

Says the guy just repeating the Nikon PR hype train. YOU have no experience on this, you wrote an article repeating another article. If anyone says otherwise apparently they are fanboys, trump or divine personal opinions. It's called a discussion Andrew, you might want to look it up. And PS people have been around this industry a while, perhaps some of us are better at sorting the wheat from the chaff when it comes to marketing hype. Let me put it this way: The only way ANYONE is getting a completely custom sensor design is to make it themselves (at huge cost). Like Canon and Sony do. Otherwise they are getting a stock design with some tweaks to suit their implementation. The sad thing is, nobody who is suggesting that these are Sony sensors (with OEM tweaks) are saying that that is a GOOD thing. Nobody is saying 'NO they are Sony sensors because Sony are the BEST', which is what you are implying with all the nonsense 'fanboy' talk. In fact I would argue it is the Nikon fans saying 'NO they Nikon sensors because Nikon are the BEST' (exhibit: your comparisons between sensors, which does zero to prove who designed them, only who use them). Nobody thinks it's a good thing, or the best, or whatever fanboy response you think they are having. Its just not PR peppered BS. Why does every Nikon fanboy think their company is so much more special than Phase One or Hasselblad? Because the marketing dept wants them to feel that way. Those companies proudly boast they are using sensors from the best manufacturer in the world (which is largely true). But Japanese pride and the fact that Nikon and Sony are competitors stop Nikon from doing that. It is really that simple. ESPECIALLY when they are on the eve of launching a competing mirrorless system to Sony who are their lunch. I hate to use the term 'fake news', but fake bloody news Andrew!

No. I just use my ability to interpret BS. Funny considering your own title on this forum...

Almost certainly this part will be Sony's fault. Because, reasons.

Ok? I guess I must see Nikon watermarks that prove that it's a Nikon sensor? I'm not sure what you think your point is here? Both are horribly compromised designs when it comes to 4K, with lower resolution sensors being far better suited. How about you compare the flagship D5 in 4K against the budget A6300/6500 and A7 III. What an absolute joke! But I guess Nikon always have the better sensors because they are always better at 'designing' them?

And nor can you in the extended DR. Plus the A7R III has greater DR at the same ISO. Who really cares?

This comes at the expensive of high ISO noise. For some people one is an advantage and for others the other. That doesn't make a single clear cut 'better' sensor. Actually Aptina. So wait, Nikon ONLY make custom sensors in their flagship cameras (your words) AND the budget D5300? What an absolute load of BS. Toshiba was making a better sensor than Sony at the time? Probably. Not really the topic of discussion. If I recall that sensor had a lot of banding issues in shadows. Sorry because you say so? Still haven't seen any evidence otherwise. Did you just agree with me? Perhaps you didn't understand my point. What?! Oh there was a magic book that fell to earth with the 'standard' designs... what rot. Who said the D850?! The K1 uses a Sony made sensor of 36MP... sound familiar? Sounds an awful lot like the ones in the D800 / D800e / D810 / A7R. These were 'flagship' models and the claim here is that Nikon have been doing this for 'years'. Or did they start with the D850, because it's convenient for the arguement (as nobody else uses that sensor yet)? Do you? I didn't know you were a leading expert on sensor designs. The fact that you seem confused by this seems to suggest otherwise. YES toppings on sensors are a lot like cake. They even talk about these things in the article you supposedly fully absorbed. Real camera companies like Phase One don't pretend to design these sensors themselves and discuss things with far greater openness, depth and understanding than the PR stunt. Maybe read what those companies have to say on the matter. Custom colour filter arrays are completely normal. They don't always change the layout, but they do change the filtering etc. Fuji changing to X-trans array does have processing implications for them, but that has zero to do with the sensor. Fuji still didn't design it. Micro lenses and CFA are essentially the customised toppings. Debayering IS image processing and has nothing to do with sensors. And again we are talking about the couple things these manufacturer have some input into and making it seem like they designed the whole shebang. Sounds like Sony aren't a fabbing company, they are a warehousing company for Nikon, who clearly are the leading sensor design and manufacturers, Sony are a glorified shed. Clearly Sony have no clue what they are doing because some fanboys want to believe. Which is only a fraction of the market Sony has in sensors. But apparently they're all Nikon sensors made on Nikon machines by Nikon engineers with profits going to Nikon and all IP owned by Nikon because they are clearly the bestest at everything. Sony are just fortunate enough to let them store them in their empty shed because they don't have anything else to do. Couldn't answer one question. Again.

Actually I did. Did you really read it? Based on what you've said you have simply gone with the dominant reading of the article. This is what Nikon want, so well done there. It's a nice little propaganda piece put together for the launch of their new mirrorless system and so we'll quietly forget they just abandoned another mount. Didn't bother to answer any of the discussion points? Very, very annoying. I did read the article and see nothing that suggests that Nikon design anything beyond packaging and sensor toppings, which is exactly what we've already always known. There is a LOT of implication that specific technologies used in the sensors Nikon use came from Nikon, but nowhere does it explicitly state it. Wait, the article said they had whole teams dedicated to every sensor. Why didn't they say only for these models? Why didn't they say only 2 teams? Why didn't they say only for top 'flagship' models? Again, the article doesn't actually say what you think it says. You are taking the implications that are applied by the Nikon PR department (who had control over the whole situation as stated in the article) as being the 'truth'. This is a silly argument. NOBODY is saying a Nikon camera is a Sony camera because it uses a Sony sensor. Apple also use Sony sensors, nobody is implying that iPhones are Sony phones. But people will say the LCD is an LG or Samsung or whoever. Just as they say the camera sensor is a Sony. Equally, if Apple customise (in whatever way) and ARM processor to their own specs, is it no longer an ARM processor? Image processors are not image sensors. Again nobody is claiming that Nikon (or anyone else) use Sony image processors. As for X-Trans - I would hardly call it a 'technology' in of itself, it is a rearrangement of the colour filter array. Bayer arrays are not Sony's (on Nikon's) design either. Additionally the CFA is part of the sensor toppings, which Nikon (and Fuji etc) do customise. It is really the main thing that anyone customises. So you are pointing again at the same thing and saying 'see, see?'. Oh of course, Pentax are too weak and feeble and unlike the mighty Nikon they take off the shelf sensors. But Nikon 'design' theirs. Why is it that the Pentax off the shelf sensors seem to be a LOT like the Nikon sensors? Let me ask you this: If Nikon are responsible for the design of these sensors and the fabbing plant literally just makes them to Nikon spec, why don't Nikon diversify their production? I mean we've had earthquakes and other disasters that have left Nikon waiting and waiting for sensors, why not have multiple fabbing companies just make them for them? They are having supply issues with the D850, why not get Reneasis to make some D850 sensors as well, keep the supply chain going. Apple diversify their parts so that if a supplier goes down or has QC issues or whatever they can maintain production. Why don't Nikon for each sensor?

You are choosing 'some' areas and stating it is unequivocally 'better'. Better at some things yes. One would expect it to be given it is the latest in what Sony can make vs a 2-3 year old design. This is my bet: Sony 42MP is exclusive to Sony. It is Sony designed for Sony cameras. Specifically around the on sensor PDAF. The D850's 46MP sensor is also a Sony design. It is the Sony third party sensor replacement for the aging 36MP model (sold to Nikon and Pentax). The 46MP, like the 36MP before it has an exclusivity arrangement with Nikon for a period of time. After that time we will see a K-1 III rocking that sensor most likely. Nikon toppings and packaging notwithstanding. Sure. As I said they made their own sensors. They also got other manufacturers to make their sensors (like the one in the D4 / Df). Not sure what that has to do with Sony sensors? And it has disappointing performance to say the least. So Nikon have these designers that are the best in the world and make way better designs than Sony can, yet still use Sony designs? Seems somewhat contradictory. D800 was a 'Nikon' sensor until it wasn't. So was the D7200. Yes Canon and everyone else uses off the shelf Sony sensors even though they have their own designers too... Wonder why Canon don't just get Sony to make their designs? It's clear reading this article that people will believe anything that aligns with their own beliefs. Honestly I haven't read anything that says that they are 'designing' at that level. They are testing reference designs and making design tweaks to packaging and toppings. Sony have spoken about the relationship they have with their customers pretty frankly in the past. I seem to recall a DPR article where Sony were talking about the process for (say) the D850 sensor... Yet Team Nikon Boys still didn't think the D850 was even fabbed by Sony (until very recently when it was confirmed). Nikon Crew simply don't like Sony having any part of their camera. I'm still struggling to see what the 'facts' being presented are. Fact 1: Nikon design packaging. Fact 2: Nikon design toppings. Fact 3: Sony seem to do the rest. This has pretty much always been known. Fact 4: Sony don't use these sensors themselves except in some rare cases and as such most are not directly comparable. Say what? Interesting that Nikon take their manufacturing to Sony then given how much they go about hiding the fact. Why aren't one of those other makers making their sensors? Seems a bit weird for Nikon to hand over their masterful 'designs' to the competition. Patents are a whole different discussion. Quad Bayer Sony just announced. You would think they'd have to wait for all the designers to announce theirs first

Oh so Nikon didn't invite these journos in to try and spin what they do? Do you really think that's the case? There has been spin from the Nikon world ever since they stopped making their own sensors to try and state that they are their own work. Why do you think they always obscure who actually makes them? And this. There was so much chest thumping associated with the D850 about how perfect it was because it had to be (rather than it is) that a lot of the 'facts' were decided about the camera before the thing even landed in anyone's hands.

This. 100% this. This whole article about the design process at Nikon is literally designed to make people think they have more in house involvement than they do. Read between the lines and Nikon do the following: 1. Design the way the chips are packaged 2. Design sensor toppings Thats about it. Nikon are not designing a sensor from scratch and saying 'hey make this'. Sony give them the basics of what can be made and Nikon customise. Isnt it funny they say they 'design down to xyz' and then point at the bits we already know they (and everyone else making big enough orders) customise? There is no secret sauce here. D850 sensor is better than A7R III sensor? Really? Sure about that? A7R III achieves the near enough same DR but at ISO 100 rather than 64. A7R sensor has OSPDAF that the Nikon lacks. They are similar enough and yet the Nikon sensor is what, 2-3 years newer and still doesn't have the tech in the Sony. I would be very interested to see where Nikon is getting its mirrorless sensors from. Which sensor specifically? Sony rarely uses the 'same' sensors as their off the shelf counterparts. Those that are the actual same units usually perform (according to DXO etc) as close enough to identical (or other factors that explain any minor differences). Explain this: Why do Sony get to sell 'Nikon designed' sensors to Pentax? Or Fuji? Or anyone else that will buy them?

Nope. Olympus use Sony. Panasonic use Sony. Nikon use Sony. Ricoh use Sony. Leica uses Sony and TowerJazz and Reneasis. Canon use Sony when they aren't using Canon.

According to every Nikon fanboy ever, including the latest fanboy propaganda is that Nikon design their own sensors and Sony are simply a foundry for them. This would mean that if Sony cameras have the best sensors, it's because they have the best sensor designers or that those other brands aren't designing their own and are indeed using off the shelf designs. Either way, hardly call that Sony's fault. Or perhaps the idea that they are 'just' a foundry is total bunk (which it is). The article says it's the second project for this manufacturer. I say it's Leica, they are the only ones currently using larger format sensors from TJ. Additionally Leica are expected to be releasing a new S series Medium Format DSLR (which is what these could be for) as well as SL II (and Q etc). Also they are believed to be working with Zenit to produce a 'lower cost' model(s).

C100 is a great camera. For 5D IV money you can pick up a MkII. I just took delivery of a near mint 1DC, the S35 mode is indeed quite similar (if not better) than the C100, it certainly has a bit chunkier files. I like this camera a lot for that very reason, S35 with GREAT 1080p SOOC with Log is fantastic. PLUS the camera does really lovely 4K if called upon PLUS is a really great stills camera. If you need something run-n-gun then the C100 is probably still the better choice, but for me the formats this camera shoots make it very very flexible indeed. Needs a decent monitor, but so does the C100 in my opinion and the EVF on that camera is utter garbage anyway. Plus this camera also does that great 4K to 1080p HDMI downsampling. So I figure this plus a Video Assist should be able to cover most bases. From here I will wait to see what happens with Canon mirrorless, but even if there is no FF blah blah, I think they are about to get a lot more serious with video (and they have said as much) and so even models like the M5 II will likely be a decent step above say the M50 (and everything that came before). If not I may end up adding the 5D IV.

I didn't say it was no good. Pretty sure I've said multiple times now that the OP should buy it and that it is an excellent choice. The points I have made are points to consider and are in fact reasonable. It isn't black and white like you seem to want to think. i.e. Me: FS700 bad vs You: FS700 good. Really? Have a look at the GH5. But why does it need to have a fully articulating screen? The whole point of discussion was ADDING a screen. Ad yes the Pocket will have those features, so a decent display will inherit them as well. Besides, I am guessing you haven't looked at what is available in this space these days. *sigh* I asked HOW WELL does it work in that setup, which despite being a supposed owner and user, you couldn't answer. You keep diverting, saying how there is this work around or that. Fact is IF you need the setup I describe, it does NOT work well, if at all. That SHOULD be a point of consideration. That doesn't mean it is automatically a deal-breaker, it is up to the individual to decide how that affects them. Obviously you can put a compact AF E-Mount lens on there, that isn't what I was asking about. Wanna talk about the pocket? I have no idea what the AF is like. The AF on the FS700 is no way in the same league as many other cameras with reliable AF, like the Canon's you dismiss or newer Sony's like my A7 III. For everything else you are zone focussing or using a wireless FF. The smaller gimbals are offering wireless FF that are close to built in. FS700? Well it won't go on those gimbals, so now you need another expensive bit of kit that you buy or hire. Sure I guess. But cameras like the C500 are much more of a 'proper cinema camera' but you decided to dismiss that based on 'spec'. So is it spec-dollar or how 'proper cinema camera' it is? The FS700 is in the handicam NEX group. That is the type of camera it is. It does a LOT for the money... But it is no better made than a GH5 or Pocket Cinema Camera... But it is bigger, hallow and plastic (the GH5 is magnesium alloy). They sure are. Seemingly though the FS700 is better than all of them... just 'coz. Sorry that you don't like it, but it is a valid issue. When developing a project these are things that need to be considered. Sure if you are going to use a bodgy shoulder rig, a cinesaddle and a tripod you aren't going to need a truck. But every bit of gear needs to be considerable bigger, heavier and more expensive for a bigger camera. This is a simple fact. If you have a lot of grip, that does start to get huge and expensive. Up to the user, but these are issues that need to be solved by someone. Don't spread false information that it has no impact, either you are clueless or you are really just trying hard to beat the drum of the FS700. Exactly. The cost difference between shooting an Alexa vs a Pocket Cinema 4K is not in the cost of the camera. Same as a R1 etc. Not to mention all the extra crew required.

If you have a decent camera the aids are already in place, so a basic monitor (with a decent panel) will suffice. No it mightn't be an odyssey, but again you are paying a lot more for that combo. You can alternatively get a very nice monitor that is still smaller and lighter and cheaper (and potentially even better). Well no. I said I was interested in the C500 and FS700 but landed on the Pocket 4K. I may have also suggested the C500 is an alternative model that has some benefits (not the least being the significantly great connectivity to the outside world that the FS700 is limited in). The C500 would require the same rigging and Odyssey as the FS700. As a package would also be somewhat more expensive (but not that different, which is why I mentioned it). The FS5 is a lot smaller and can be broken down into a MUCH smaller system than the FS700 @ 4K. So the FS5 has a distinct advantage there if you need flexibility. First I've heard about it being noisier, only heard the other direction. Body is double the price, sure, but once you add the Odyssey you're looking at a much smaller gap. Add all the other stuff and the $1500-2k AUD difference becomes quite small indeed. It sounds like you've found your camera then! No seriously, you were already sold on it and don't want to hear otherwise... So why not buy it already? Personally these are the pros and cons: Pros - Does RAW and HFR pretty cheap - S35 that match other Sony cams well Cons - Handles poorly - Average colour (certainly fixable in post - if you like spending all your time fixing things in post this might be a plus) - Clunky for grip (needs bigger grip than smaller setups, which adds cost and reduces flexibility) - Low-ish build quality - Expensive compared to some newer options - Middle of the road connectivity, better than a Pocket worse than C300/C500 Those two Pros many very well outweigh those smaller Cons for you. As such just go and buy one. Agreed. AF isn't terribly important but YMMV. The FS700 CAN be rigged up but it's a bit of a kludge. It's an awkward shape and design. How does it go with lenses in this config? The ones I've seen you can only really put very small lenses up front. Adding heavy glass or follow focus etc just makes it unusable on the Ronin from what I've seen. Yes obviously the monitor can mount on the bars. Still a Pocket 4K would be a lot more flexible (and fit easier and better balanced and use a smaller, cheaper, easier to move, easier to find / beg / borrow / rent / buy gimbal with low cost wireless follow focuses built in) than the FS700. FS700 is definitely doable on all sorts of grip, just every bit of grip needs to be the bigger, sturdier, heavier, more expensive, harder to find / borrow / rent / barter gear. Once you've got all that you suddenly need a dedicated production van for the camera dept and a second and third team members and so on. Shooting a bigger camera has compromises all the way down the line. If you are shooting bigger productions then no worries - But if you're shooting bigger productions then you aren't shooting on the budget camera you bought on eBay either. It makes sense to stay smaller where you can unless there is the need to go bigger. Having the option of both (as you will) is also nice to have. If you've only got one, smaller is better. All-in-one is also better. Agreed. Although I would argue that the FS700 doesn't in fact feel like a proper cinema camera.

Same logic applies - 2x BMPCC 4K or 1x FS700? Easy choice! C500 RAW > FS700 RAW. C300 OOC > FS700 OOC. C500 and C300 are on a different level. FS700 is handicam / NEX group prosumer product. Don't need what the C300/C500 offer? Then FS700 is a fine choice. Offers better 'spec' and always has. Nothing new here. Plenty of professionals bought the C300/500 over the cheaper and 'better' spec'd FS700. If you don't need what the C500 offers, again the FS700 is a good choice. Not really sure what you're arguing about? Do you want to know if the FS700 is any good or do you want to try and 'prove' that it is better than everything else? Hyperbole. Well I'm talking in AUD as that is my market. Pocket is $1585. FS700 is ~$2.2k+ plus Atomos which is $1k+ or Odessey which is $2k+. Really want to talk about NDs? Personally I'd just use them in-adapter for the most part. As for plenty of reasons to prefer the larger form factor - Sure! Except the FS700's form factor is universally panned for being absolutely rubbish. So that is a big minus - It's cheap, it's uncomfortable so none of the pluses of a larger body and then has the minuses that means it needs bigger grip gear for everything, every time you buy / hire things like gimbals etc you need the MUCH bigger and more expensive versions of everything, but lets quibble about the cost of NDs So what IS required then if that isn't enough? Surely your whole point is that pretty much all gear is 'good enough' these days so it comes down to specific uses or features right? I agree. The FS700 is still a great unit and those features are nice. BUT you can't break the FS700 + 7Q combo down to make it smaller, where you can build up the pocket. Pocket has a great monitor and adding one is cheap and light. S35 is achievable through speed booster anyway. Dual XLRs and some connectivity etc are definitely plusses, as are NDs and SDI and all that. If one can have both (or all) then go for it. If I'm only going to have one, I think the pocket is more flexible. The FS700 is perfect in that case. Or an FS5 etc. Certainly less of an issue with the C500. But yes, the FS700 was definitely better in the frame rate options. Same. I think the OP was already convinced to get an FS700, which is fine. I was only making some 'other' suggestions but they seem to be all wrong. I think they just wanted people to confirm how great the FS700 is. It is awesome what they can do for the money. That unit was indeed a great deal and got snapped up in 5 minutes flat. That's hardly the norm. Same.