PolarStarArts

I own a Canon EOS M6 with the EV-DC1 viewfinder and thought I would try shooting video with an old Canon FD-series 35mm lens and a EOS to FD adapter.

Here is the result. It's not the greatest video ever, but it is what it is. I had no difficulty nailing focus because the focus peaking feature on the M6 is excellent and easy to use. Plus, when your subject is more than 6 metres (20ft) away, the focus ring on the lens will be (or should be) at infinity so that everything will be in sharp focus anyway. If there's anything I've learned from this experience, it's that auto focus is great, but it's an aid and not always a total replacement for good focussing skills.
If the rumoured Canon EOS M6 Mark II does end up having uncropped 4K, I might pick up a Mark II body so I can shoot in 4K. If not, I'll get a M50 body and some C-mount lenses with an adapter so I can compensate for the extreme crop in 4K.
 
in_wortley_village.mp4

I own a Canon EOS M6 with the EV-DC1 viewfinder and thought I would try shooting video with an old Canon FD-series 35mm lens and a EOS to FD adapter.

Here is the result. It's not the greatest video ever, but it is what it is. I had no difficulty nailing focus because the focus peaking feature on the M6 is excellent and easy to use. Plus, when your subject is more than 6 metres (20ft) away, the focus ring on the lens will be (or should be) at infinity so that everything will be in sharp focus anyway. If there's anything I've learned from this experience, it's that auto focus is great, but it's an aid and not always a total replacement for good focussing skills.
If the rumoured Canon EOS M6 Mark II does end up having uncropped 4K, I might pick up a Mark II body so I can shoot in 4K. If not, I'll get a M50 body and some C-mount lenses with an adapter so I can compensate for the extreme crop in 4K.
 
in_wortley_village.mp4

An XC10 with aps-c, 1.8 to 2.8 and uncrippled AF in 4k would be my dream camera.

They are more likely to do it the other way round just to spite everyone !
 

Trying to get nice 1080 while casual handheld shooting with an ILC is a mine-field I've been trying to cross for some time.
To grossly over-simplify:
All cinema cameras are out because they're either too heavy or too attention grabbing Canon non-cinema cameras are deliberately crippled to protect their cinema line Canon with ML is unreliable and has a steep learning curve The GH5 either can't focus reliably or people can't work out how to do it The Sonys all seem to overheat (although depending on what you shoot this might not be an issue) and the smaller/cheaper ones have bad RS The Fuji XH-1 chews batteries and the extra grip costs extra and makes it pretty heavy Things like the original BMPCC need a rig and becomes cumbersome (BMPCC needs external power) Going modular with things like the BMMCC requires a rig and BMMCC has almost no controls and so you can't use it to adapt to changing situations Mostly the way I see people getting around this combination is to either choose Canons soft 1080, sacrifice reliability and use Canon ML RAW, get a fast fixed-lens camera like RX100 or RX10, accept RS and overheating with a6300/6500, or accept a fixed focal length and give a big middle-finger to the whole industry and use their phone (where with up to 4k60 and 1080p240 it beats everything up to 10x or 20x the price).   Or just put it on a tripod, and accept that you'll get hassled or barred from most places you go.
The basic issue is that industry assumes that consumers who want convenience don't want image quality (compact point-and-shoots), consumers who want image quality only take photos (Canon DSLRs take lovely photos), or that if you want image quality then you're a pro and you can use a tripod and don't mind a huge camera.  We're caught between the other users basically.

No idea why the Vimeo clip shouldn't show for you.
Here's the video on YouTube
It was a pleasure to shoot this, I even had a Bolex pistol grip

One of five films created for Morrison’s in the UK (supermarket chain).
 
Filmed on two GX80’s.
 
Discreet, stabilised and good enough for this job.
 
 

For shooting in studio with real time tracking and rendered background, they used 8K screen for the backdrop.
 
 
 

I was just reading on another forum about someone's struggle to find a vlogging camera...
Surely nothing less than Fujis' 100 megapixel job will be up to this task? It could work as a temporary measure until something bigger and better comes along?

portrait mode gets rid of the need for most people to have telephoto glass.  they do have different aputure settings in the pro app programs.  smartphones have a one button click to go into photo mode.  it's really not any slower, for most people.
and I've been fooled by the iphone portrait mode so many times now on instagram.  And I work in this business  .  Cinema and semi pro photography will continue, but will be more and more niche.  just as film still hangs on.
You are right.  I am theorizing about leica.  If Mattias you are able to make a prediction, do you think the new-gen leica will offer something more to casual rich people that gets them to want to chuck out their current phone, now that the iphone portrait mode is getting to be "good enough" for most people, and it's one less thing to bring around?
Also aren't you a big Leica enthusiast?  I have no skin in the game.  But I do wish Leica survives, as I do with canon.  I think their glass is really amazing.  I haven't ever used one of their cameras, but I am sure they are quite amazing as well.
 
the rich are getting richer for sure.  And watches is a status symbol for many rich people.  High end cameras are not.  I think the iphone x is a status symbol moreso.  Shooting with a camera is dorky, and will always be dorky.  Never sexy.  Unless it's a film camera then rich hipsters drool over that.  But I don't think rich kids notice whether another kid is shooting with a leica or a sony.  And without the #leica hashtag on a instagram post, no one is probably going to notice the difference between that and most other high end cameras like sony, nikon, canon, and iphone portrait mode.

They better work on auto-focus then. I think the still market is too crowded and hardware wise way more complicated (weather sealing, ergonomics, battery life, etc).

Step up folks, step right up and place your bets on which camera maker will live long enough to be in business five years from now...
Here are the camera makers I think are the most endangered, in order of risk:
 
Canon Olympus Panasonic Pentax Least endangered:
Fuji Nikon Most likely to be in business five years from now:
Google Samsung Apple Why do I think Canon, Olympus, Panasonic and Pentax are most endangered?
For starters, Canon is most at risk because it has rested on its laurels for far too long and relied on its deep and vast lens ecosystem to save the day. They've had a major loss in profits recently, and shareholders are starting to look at whether investing in Canon still makes sense. Their camera lines are predicated on excessive segmentation and incrementalism and don't offer what pros and consumers are after. They refuse to implement 4K properly, thinking they can force buyers to pay pro-grade prices for minimal 4K capabilities, while other makers are offering decent 4K capability for far less money.
Olympus is also at risk because it keeps clinging to the Micro Four-Thirds system, which accounts for only a minority of the camera and lens market. Few pros use the M43 system. It's fine for consumers who don't mind low resolution, compromised dynamic range, mediocre AF, relatively poor low-light capabilities, noisy images above 1600 ISO, and like to pay top dollar for cameras and lenses. The cost of the lenses for Panasonic and Olympus, by the way, are due to both companies opting to have high-end lens makers build their lenses rather than doing the job in-house.
For instance, their flagship camera, the OM-D E-M1x, is configured and marketed as a 'pro' camera, but the body alone is $3899. Add on say, an Olympus 12-200mm PRO for another $1200 or so and you're looking at a total system cost of $5K for a system that doesn't deliver pro-quality images. That's a poor value proposition, in my eyes.
Panasonic: See my comments for Olympus above. They've been clinging to M43 for too long as well. Sure, they've brought out cameras with new 20MP sensors, but the increased resolution won't make up for the basic deficiencies of M43 sensors or the antiquated CDAF focus systems they use. The bright spot on the horizon for Panasonic is the introduction of their new full-frame cameras and lenses. Here's hoping further development in the full frame area will result in Panasonic releasing either an affordable full-frame camera, or a line of APS-C cameras that consumers can afford and will offer a good value proposition.
Pentax: They make some good cameras, but the video they shoot leaves much to be desired, and they are expensive. Pentax have not innovated much either and they've achieved so little market penetration that hardly anyone knows they exist. And to think they once made 35mm SLRs and medium-format film cameras that were pretty much ubiquitous. And their parent company, Ricoh, is pretty much invisible despite recently bringing out a new camera model.
As to the least endangered:

Fuji make solid cameras, even if they're not barn-burners in terms of innovation. They can shoot solid 4K video. All they need now is to bring out a camera and lens system that can handle fast-moving sports and wildlife. Fuji also don't resort to the same kind of endless segmentation and incrementalism that Canon have. Their model lines are simple and understandable.
Most of their lenses are reasonably priced, and the value proposition offered by Fuji is good overall.
Nikon: Their Z6 and Z7 mirrorless full-frame cameras are solid, if a little pricy (but even still, they cost less than comparable Canon or Sony systems). You can use some older Nikon lenses without sensor cropping or other major compromises. Unlike Canon, who are trying to force their customers to buy pricy new RF-mount lenses.
They seem to have a good base for bringing out a new APS-C mirrorless camera.
While Google, Apple and Samsung are not camera makers, they are advancing rapidly in the field of computational photography. If they can bring out a new technology that puts mobile phone cameras on par with, or superior to anything extant within the traditional camera space, then they could potentially sweep all of the existing camera makers into the dustbin, at least where lower-end, consumer-grade and semi-pro cameras are concerned.

Why can't canon just do something half decent? I'd kill for an APS-C canon version of a6500 or GH5 etc... Yeah I know why, but still it would be nice.

ALL dedicated camera companies are in trouble.     Canon just show it more because of their aging sensor tech.
Each month, the reason for dedicated cameras gets less and less.
I still want proper cameras because I am anti social and hardly need a mobile phone but I can see the pace of phone camera progress Is light years faster than "normal" camera progress.
Things like low light ability and specialty lenses (EG tilt shift, macro, long lenses and ultra wides) still have an advantage for cameras over phones but even some of those advantages are being overcome for phones.
Give it a few years and it will be more than Canon in trouble as the market will simply not be big enough other than some very good (and very expensive) gear sold in small numbers.
When a phone CAN do what my 17mm tilt shift or 150 2.8 macro or 300 2.8 or even my superzoom P&S can do (and they will at some point), the gfame will be over.

Samsung is looking prescient, they recognized that the camera sector was facing massive change, making it a bad place to launch a 'me too' product.
Canon lags in the sensor space and in the software arena., which are the technologies driving the changes in the relatively stagnant imaging market. Canon is pursuing a rational corporate strategy in response, to maximize the returns from this fading sector to invest in more promising industrial markets. So it is unreasonable to expect massive new product investments here, rather a continuation of the existing policy of low cost, cautious and incremental development. The new mount exemplifies this tack, zero new technology, just a repackaging of the existing capabilities, hyped as a 'mirrorless breakthrough'.

It's sad, because the Canon "look" remains my favorite. But I think they rested on those laurels too long.

Step up folks, step right up and place your bets on which camera maker will live long enough to be in business five years from now...
Here are the camera makers I think are the most endangered, in order of risk:
 
Canon Olympus Panasonic Pentax Least endangered:
Fuji Nikon Most likely to be in business five years from now:
Google Samsung Apple Why do I think Canon, Olympus, Panasonic and Pentax are most endangered?
For starters, Canon is most at risk because it has rested on its laurels for far too long and relied on its deep and vast lens ecosystem to save the day. They've had a major loss in profits recently, and shareholders are starting to look at whether investing in Canon still makes sense. Their camera lines are predicated on excessive segmentation and incrementalism and don't offer what pros and consumers are after. They refuse to implement 4K properly, thinking they can force buyers to pay pro-grade prices for minimal 4K capabilities, while other makers are offering decent 4K capability for far less money.
Olympus is also at risk because it keeps clinging to the Micro Four-Thirds system, which accounts for only a minority of the camera and lens market. Few pros use the M43 system. It's fine for consumers who don't mind low resolution, compromised dynamic range, mediocre AF, relatively poor low-light capabilities, noisy images above 1600 ISO, and like to pay top dollar for cameras and lenses. The cost of the lenses for Panasonic and Olympus, by the way, are due to both companies opting to have high-end lens makers build their lenses rather than doing the job in-house.
For instance, their flagship camera, the OM-D E-M1x, is configured and marketed as a 'pro' camera, but the body alone is $3899. Add on say, an Olympus 12-200mm PRO for another $1200 or so and you're looking at a total system cost of $5K for a system that doesn't deliver pro-quality images. That's a poor value proposition, in my eyes.
Panasonic: See my comments for Olympus above. They've been clinging to M43 for too long as well. Sure, they've brought out cameras with new 20MP sensors, but the increased resolution won't make up for the basic deficiencies of M43 sensors or the antiquated CDAF focus systems they use. The bright spot on the horizon for Panasonic is the introduction of their new full-frame cameras and lenses. Here's hoping further development in the full frame area will result in Panasonic releasing either an affordable full-frame camera, or a line of APS-C cameras that consumers can afford and will offer a good value proposition.
Pentax: They make some good cameras, but the video they shoot leaves much to be desired, and they are expensive. Pentax have not innovated much either and they've achieved so little market penetration that hardly anyone knows they exist. And to think they once made 35mm SLRs and medium-format film cameras that were pretty much ubiquitous. And their parent company, Ricoh, is pretty much invisible despite recently bringing out a new camera model.
As to the least endangered:

Fuji make solid cameras, even if they're not barn-burners in terms of innovation. They can shoot solid 4K video. All they need now is to bring out a camera and lens system that can handle fast-moving sports and wildlife. Fuji also don't resort to the same kind of endless segmentation and incrementalism that Canon have. Their model lines are simple and understandable.
Most of their lenses are reasonably priced, and the value proposition offered by Fuji is good overall.
Nikon: Their Z6 and Z7 mirrorless full-frame cameras are solid, if a little pricy (but even still, they cost less than comparable Canon or Sony systems). You can use some older Nikon lenses without sensor cropping or other major compromises. Unlike Canon, who are trying to force their customers to buy pricy new RF-mount lenses.
They seem to have a good base for bringing out a new APS-C mirrorless camera.
While Google, Apple and Samsung are not camera makers, they are advancing rapidly in the field of computational photography. If they can bring out a new technology that puts mobile phone cameras on par with, or superior to anything extant within the traditional camera space, then they could potentially sweep all of the existing camera makers into the dustbin, at least where lower-end, consumer-grade and semi-pro cameras are concerned.

The GFX-100 has been sold out since orders opened. It maybe $10k, but as a 100MP shooter at "only" $10k it's easily the cheapest game in town. 
Canon need to innovate not just in patents but with actual products. And as for why the choose to leave the smartphone sensor market to Sony and Samsung it's beyond me? 
I think today's dedicated cameras should be capable of doing all the clever tricks that smartphones and action cams can do... but much better... and they should do more of them. Not just computation, but optically also.
My smartphones and action cams can all do compelling hdr stills and video, where extreme highlights and shadows all appear exposed properly.... my dedicated cameras cannot. Always a struggle. There should be nothing that a smartphone can do imaging wise that beats a dedicated camera. Not even the cheapest dedicated camera. Or else why buy one? Which is of course exactly where we are today.

Camera companies have an enormous capacity for pain. Olympus's camera division last made a profit in 2009. BTW, Leica was on the verge of bankruptcy in 2004.
I rather suspect that Sony sees its losses in cameras as a marketing expense for its sensors....

It's the camera industry's "climate emergency" moment. Unless they take radical action and quick, they're going to sink under the murky water.
Sony's earnings are due on 30th July, so keep an eye on this page for those - https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/presen/er/
Also good reading, is Fuji's CEO and his book Innovating out of a Crisis - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Innovating-Out-Crisis-Fujifilm-Vanishing-ebook/dp/B00OFK46V0/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Fujifilm+crisis&qid=1564310458&s=gateway&sr=8-1
This shows how the company diversified after the film camera era responsible for 60% of their income vanished over night.
They got back on track in digital and have done very well.
Very ironic that now one of their most successful and profitable lines is instant FILM!
The crux of the matter is that digital technology killed the film market and now the tech sector is doing the same to dedicated, stand-alone digital devices.
The tech sector doesn't just make money selling hardware, like smartphones... It's the apps and online services which are so important. The Japanese companies have so far failed to appreciate this. Blackmagic at least gets it - selling a camera to further uptake of Resolve and their other products.
Most of the eco-system around cameras wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Chinese companies.
The software side is largely ignored by Canon and Nikon especially. Canon should, for example, have bought Adobe a LONG time ago. Look how profitable they are now, with their evil subscription model.
Look how poor PlayMemories was by Sony. They do not have the staff.
Sony at least did enter the smartphone market, but aren't doing that well. No real USP or imagination. Just solid, well specced phones is not enough.
At least TWO of the dedicated camera manufacturers should also have entered the smartphone market in a big way, but they only so much as dipped their toes in the water and fussed around with wifi.
So what do they DO ABOUT IT now?? The ship has sailed. All consumers now have incredibly powerful computational imaging devices, connected services and software in their pocket. Camera makers must now look to how the market might evolve in 20 years with A.I. The work on the next gen processors must be done by Canon / Nikon / Fuji / Panasonic / Sony and not only by Apple or Samsung. We are talking cloud based, deep learning, mega-chips, able to apply artificial digital lighting in real-time, able to sense depth and build a 3D map of the entire scene in real-time, able to apply any lens focal length and depth of field convincingly without errors, able to perform with a small sensor in low light from an incredibly thin wafer of semiconductors in the pocket... And bring all that technology to the screen and consumer in an imaginative and beautiful way.
It's a big ask when Canon can't even get rid of the crop in 4K
Personally I think they are doomed in consumer market and we may even sadly lose Olympus and Rioch completely.

If Canon wants to get back into the game it has to up its video spec, duh... but it won't. Photographers are shooting video more and more. Pro photographers shoot raw, so it's just common sense to introduce internal raw video. Chances are Sony will beat Canon to it with the A7SIII, Sigma is already doing it with the FP. If the EOS R shot APS-C 4K lossless raw with <15ms rolling shutter it would've been huge.
 

Well, this is the end result of Canon not making the cameras people want at prices they can afford. Canon's strategy has always been to market lenses with the idea of using cameras to try to lock people into their lens ecosystem, but the cameras are crippled in terms of capabilities in an effort to protect their upscale cameras and lenses - such as their Cinema EOS line, for example, if video is your thing.
The problem with this kind of strategy is that you end up cutting off your nose to spite your face by jacking up the price of admission to certain capabilities to the point where only a few can enter. It may be initially profitable, and you may be able to run the company for a while that way, but it eventually catches up with you. Canon have not only rested on their laurels and refused to innovate, they've also tried hanging on far too long to their existing lens ecosystem as a way to remain profitable.
Another big problem that Canon have is excessive segmentation. They have too many cameras chasing too few consumer dollars and constantly short customers on features in hopes they'll stump up for the more expensive model one or two levels up. This tells me Canon are somewhat out of touch with the state of the global economy, which tanked in 2008 and still hasn't fully recovered.
Mind you, car makers do the same thing, but they realize that only 5 - 10 % of their market can afford to buy their upper-tier versions of their basic product. They don't position their cars as a "we have a really crappy base model that has only a manual transmission and no air conditioning and if you want better than that, you have to pay Cadillac prices" kind of proposition. Most car dealers won't actually sell the stripper models, they just use them as bait to get less well-heeled customers on the dealership floor. Those customers end up opting for something a little better than base and find that their finance payments are maybe $20 -$50 per month more than the base model anyway.
In short, Canon's camera line-up and marketing strategy is downright diffused and severely confused.
Blaming their problems on smart phones is a cop-out. What if Canon made a smartphone that incorporated camera technology that beat out every other smartphone maker's cameras by a wide margin? And concentrated on marketing it to the low-end crowd that don't have a really serious interest in photography, but would have bought a point-and-shoot instead back in the days when smartphone cameras weren't so good? What I'm getting at here is that what the world wants is a good, modern-day equivalent to the Brownie camera or the Kodak Instamatic.
Make it good, make it cheap, sell a bazillion of 'em. As the technology improves, camera users that have a more serious interest in photography may be interested in a more advanced but still reasonably-priced model.
But I digress.
If I could suggest how Canon could solve its problems, here's what I would recommend:
Ditch the digital SLRs, that ship has sailed; people want mirrorless cameras that outperform DSLRs and have none of their drawbacks. Make one consumer-grade camcorder that does 4K, one semi-pro model that does the same thing, and one pro model. Price them at $1000, $1500 and $3500 ~ 4000. Start making the whole range of mirrorless lenses, from wide-angle all the way to extreme telephoto, so people don't have to screw with adapters and get, at best, mixed results. Make the lenses a common system that fits both APS-C and full-frame cameras; this will simplify manufacturing and cut costs. Make one really good APS-C stills camera that can also do 4K video with no crop. Price the body out at $1K and offer a full range of good lenses retailing for between $500 and $750. Stop incrementalizing your cameras by offering more expensive models that offer only a few extra features. Ditch the XC10, XC15 hybrid cameras. While an interesting experiment, nobody buys these cameras, not even the photojournalists/videographers they're aimed at. Ditch the EOS RP. It's so crippled that it's an embarrassment. Knowledgeable consumers don't like feeling like they have to make a Faustian bargain just to get a full-frame camera despite not having the kind of money camera makers want them to sink into a full-frame camera system. Stop worrying about having your upper-end cameras and EOS Cinema cameras and lenses cannibalized by cheaper cameras that perform nearly as well. Pro cinematographers don't want low-end or even mid-range cameras and lenses. They want proper, fully professional cameras that can accept lenses made by Arri and other pro lens makers. Seriously, the craziness I see in the photo equipment market is making me long for the days of the 35mm SLR, when everything was simple. For instance, Canon made the AT-1, AE-1, AV-1 and A-1 cameras starting back in the mid-1970s. There was just one lens system that would fit all of these cameras: the FD mount. There was no segmentation where you had a camera that accepted a small lens like the APS-C mirrorless lens of today, and another camera that would accept a bigger lens with a different mount.  Their models were set out in a linear, logical fashion and it made sense. And you could do pro work with any of these cameras save for the AV-1 maybe, and the FD-mount lenses that they accepted.
 
 
 

He might find Canon’s RP up there. 

All sorts of innovation remains. Not just larger numbers on the box.
Modularity. Add ons. Different grips. Different interface jacks at the side. Slot in LCDs. Wireless modular follow focuses.
Exposing at 1/50 F2 in daylight without pissing around with filters.
Better dynamic range.
More film like colour profiles.
Better design and styling of bodies and lenses.
More soul and character.
More photographic DNA.
Better controls.
Larger screens.
Better touch screen interfaces designed afresh from ground up.
Human-like focus pulls using the AF system, not the quick digital looking racks.
A.I.
Apps.
Wireless focusing modules.
LiDar.
The list is fucking endless... But all Sony sees is higher megapixels and faster processors.

The funny thing is that people here still believe that consumers are buying whatever Canon throwing at them.
Maybe 5 years ago when hordes of amateurs were buying cameras, but now the customers are more informed, better image educated and the competition much harder.
The Canon line up right now seems like the shop from Friday the 13th, every camera a terrifying story..