kye

Well, we've gotten drastically better pixels, but because everyone has been screaming incoherently about wanting sharper images the manufacturers took the higher performance and kept the same overall image performance but made the pixels smaller so there's more of them.
Everyone said they wanted a camera that could match the 2.5K Alexa, but because there were more people screaming for resolution than screaming for quality the industry took it's improvements and gave us mediocre 4K cameras, then more improvements and we got good but not great 5K downsampling cameras, then more improvements and we got quite good 6K cameras, and since then the flagship bodies have given us 8K / 12K / 17K cameras with pixels that are close to rivalling the 2.5K Alexa.
So ARRI released the Alexa 35, and now there's a 4K ARRI camera that absolutely smashes the 8K / 12K / 17K flagship cameras.
It's a complete myth that cameras aren't getting better.  They're getting better by leaps and bounds, but almost all those gains have been "spent" on smaller pixels / higher resolution.  If that hadn't been the case, you'd probably have had every other feature you've ever wanted by now.

My own tried and tested formula for determining if prices are getting out of hand is how much of an, erm, “rounding error” occurs when relaying the price I’ve paid for something to the wife.
When it comes to cameras, it would be a base level of 10%.
If I bought a new camera nowadays it would more likely be in the 20-25% area.
The area where my perception of price escalation is most piqued though is  in the price of first party lenses as much as it is cameras.

Good points.
The way I see it is there's a toxic feedback loop of consumerism, hype, marketing, and release cycles.  The skepticism and criticisms around this is justified, but the forgotten ingredient in this whole picture is us - the people paying attention.
Without us, the whole thing falls flat.
I would suggest the uncomfortable truth is that the people caught up in the drama of it are either making money from it (manufacturers, dealers, influencers, etc) or are desperately trying to buy their way into making nicer images.
I will be the first to admit I did this.  I tried to buy gorgeous images by swallowing the myth that Canon colour science was the answer, then that 4K was the answer, then that shallow DOF was the answer.  The truth was that even if someone handed me an Alexa LF I'd still have made awful looking images.
Sure, there are people making great work and want to upgrade their equipment from time to time and dip into the chaos briefly, but once they've made their decision and bought something that works for them, they tune out again.  These people are spending their time on lighting tutorials, getting better at pre-production and planning, learning how to improve their edits, etc.  They're not watching reviews and talking online about the colour subsampling of the 120p modes of the latest 12 cameras that are rumoured to come out in the next 17 minutes.
My advice to you is this - if you feel like this then take a break from the industry and try and remember why you got into this in the first place.  I'll bet it wasn't because you found a deep love for reading spec sheets!

Good to hear you got a solution that works for your (very challenging) shooting requirements - that's what truly matters!
Low-light is now the current limitation for the high-end MFT line-up.  The GH7 sacrifices having a dual-base-ISO in favour of having the dual-readouts and the DR boost that architecture gives.
I shoot uncontrolled external locations in available light, which means low-light performance is a consideration for me too, but the GH7s performance is enough for my needs.
I suspect the low-light capabilities of MFT would be described as "Very Good to Excellent", but the latest FF cameras now have low-light capabilities that would be described as "Absolutely Incredible" and so MFT lags by comparison.  You can't cheat the laws of physics!
It wasn't that long ago that cameras weren't really usable above ISO 1600 or 3200, so things have advanced very quickly.  Suggesting that you "need" to shooting weddings at ISO 25,600 would have been considered a joke and saying you were serious would have started arguments and gotten you banned as a troll!
Personally I think the "if todays cameras can't do it then you don't need it" is a silly perspective, because it implies that there aren't any new situations or circumstances that are worth recording, and obviously that's just plain ridiculous.
I wonder how the GH7 compares to the original A7S.  The difference might be smaller than you'd think.

We might be surprised at how many people out there are in the hobby for, more or less, that reason. 
On the other hand, being truly creative at cinema and storytelling is rather elusive.  That's my experience anyway.  Good stories are hard to do.
But, playing with tech is a gateway into this creative realm.  Honing craft is part of the larger process, right?  With craft, you don't need to be creative, so much as tenacious.  One can be good and clean at the craft without being all that remarkable with the other stuff.
Anyway, run around with Birders if you want to see the extremes between creativity and tech hoarding.  Capturing "Birds In Flight" is a big goal, and for many of them (affluent retirees) they'll buy kits that are valued at 10's of thousands of dollars -- yet they struggle to understand how to make it deliver images that tell a compelling story.  They latch onto tech to mitigate their creative shortcomings... this kind of thing is not really a harsh criticism, as it's definitely something I'm guilty of.

Quick follow-up after spending more time with the R6 Mark III at the shop.
The R6 Mark III is pulling ahead strongly.  IBIS is very effective and reliable for handheld shooting, and the EVF proved extremely useful, especially in bright exterior conditions where the small 3" LCD on the C50 felt noticeably inadequate for precise framing and focus. Flash sync and mechanical shutter add useful flexibility for occasional stills. It delivers most of the key video features I liked on the C50 (7K open-gate, LUT support, S&Q) but with better overall hybrid handling and a lower entry price since I’m starting fresh on RF lenses either way.
The R6 Mark III menu feels more comfortable to read overall (the C50's cine UI isn't well adapted to the small 3" display, text and icons can be hard to parse quickly). Switching between photo and video modes is instantaneous, and the mode dial with independent custom settings (C1/C2/C3) is much handier for fast-paced environments where I need to jump between setups without diving into sub-menus. Overall this makes the UI feel better suited to quick, dynamic shooting.
Downsides: consumer body look (a cage + handle will address that), no XLR top handle, no dedicated digital zoom rockers like the C50. I’ll miss some of the C50’s cine-specific features and the built-in fan for absolute thermal reliability, but tests show the R6 Mark III has fairly good thermal performance in real-world use.
I’m now leaning strongly toward the R6 Mark III. At roughly €1000 less than the C50, it packs a mean punch for the solo run&gun content I’ll be shooting. The open gate capability for multi-ratio work and stills extraction, combined with solid IBIS, the EVF, and overall usability, feels like the best balance. Price to feature ratio is hard to beat in the current hybrid market.
I still need to do more comparative tests as this is too important an investment to wing it and I still low-key want the C50.
Thanks again for all the input, it’s helped narrow things down a bit.

"my mood tanks and it bleeds into the set" is a great way to express what I was thinking.  I might have to steal your wording!
I've had cameras I've loved to use and ones I always felt like I was struggling against, and it's definitely something that can be difficult to quantify.  I suspect it's that we each have a range of priorities and preferences, and after getting used to the equipment and learning how it impacts the whole pipeline from planning through delivery and perhaps even into repeat business, the feeling we get is perhaps representative of how well it aligns with our individual preferences.  It's easy to compare specs and pixel pee images, but there are lots of things that can be a complete PITA that don't show up on the brochures or technical tests.
When reading your original post it felt like you want to go with the C50 and are trying to talk yourself into it / justify it.  One thing that I think is underrated is the idea of the quiet workhorse.  A camera that is a professional tool, does what you need without fuss, and doesn't have a lot of fanfare.  For me that was the GH5 (although the colour science and AF weren't great) and now the GH7.  These sorts of cameras don't grab headlines, but the fact that they're quiet workhorses rather than outlandish divas means you're able to move past the tech and concentrate on what you're shooting and the quality of the work.  Canon have a very solid reputation in this regard - there's a reason they ruled the doc space for decades.
One other thought..  if you don't have one already, consider buying a nice matte box.  It'll help to stabilise the rig and will also make you look more impressive to clients!

@kye
I don’t disagree with the basic market argument, and I’m not suggesting cameras are a necessity or a right. What I was pointing to is less about entitlement and more about cultural tone. Markets can function correctly and still feel disconnected from the lived reality of a lot of people right now.
Also i’m not arguing companies shouldn’t sell high end gear, only questioning whether the pace and intensity of constant releases and marketing still feels aligned with the broader moment we’re in. This is an observation about fatigue and context, not about price controls or obligations.

@kye
Thanks for the thoughtful take, two solid points.
On the first one: I don’t really have emotional attachment to camera bodies anymore. They’re just tools that either help me get the shot or get in the way. Lenses are the emotional part for me (the rendering, the character, the way they feel when I look through them), but the body is basically a computer with a mount and some buttons.
That said, ergonomics and UI matter hugely. If I’m constantly fighting menus, fumbling controls under pressure, or the grip feels wrong after 20 minutes, my mood tanks and it bleeds into the set. I’ve shot with cameras that technically should be fine but never clicked with my hands or brain. The day always feels harder and the results flatter. So if the C50’s cine OS with shutter angle, proper exposure tools and XLR top handle let me stay in flow instead of menu-diving or second-guessing, that’s worth a lot more than specs on paper.
Reliability is primal too. A body that fails on set (AF hunting in low light, overheating mid-interview, battery dying unexpectedly, corrupted file, flicker issues, or weird grading artifacts) is a disaster, especially solo. I’ve had shoots go sideways because of exactly that. So even if a camera is technically capable, if it can’t be trusted in the field for hours, it’s not a tool, it’s a liability.
On stabilization: I’m with you. I’m not chasing perfectly locked-down gimbal shots or overcooked EIS. I actually like natural camera movement, it feels alive and human. The stuff that kills the vibe for me is the micro-jitters and tiny breathing shakes on small-body cameras. Those little floating tremors look nervous and amateurish. Big intentional camera motion (shoulder rig sway, handheld energy) can be beautiful and add to the scene, but those small unintentional artifacts from inadequate stabilization are just distracting.
That’s why Gyroflow plus shooting with EIS off (or Standard only when needed) feels like the sweet spot. I get to keep the organic handheld character I like, but I can surgically remove the annoying micro-shake in post without turning everything into a locked-down special effect. If a shot is so dynamic that even that isn’t enough, I’ll reach for a gimbal or shoulder rig anyway. But for 80 to 90 percent of the lifestyle, interview and observational stuff I’m shooting, I’ll be on sticks with handheld B-roll. 
Appreciate the nudge. It’s always good to be reminded that mood, flow and reliability matter more than specs.

Two thoughts from me.
If you close your eyes and imagine each scenario, how do each of them make you feel?
What is never really talked about is that if you feel like you're having to argue or strong-arm your equipment then you'll be in a bad mood, which isn't conducive to a happy set, getting good creative outputs, or just enjoying your life.  I think people dismiss this, but if you're directing the talent then this can really matter - people can tell if you're in a good mood or distracted or frustrated etc and people tend to take things personally so your frustrations with the rig can just as easily be interpreted by others that you're not happy with their efforts.
The odd little image technical niggle here or there won't make nearly as much difference as enjoying what you do vs not.
When it comes to IBIS vs Giroflow vs EIS etc, it's worth questioning if more stabilisation is better.  For the "very dynamic handheld shots" having a bit more camera motion might even be a good thing if it is the right kind of motion.  Big budget productions have chosen to run with shoulder-mounted large camera rigs and the camera shake was pleasing and added to the energy of the scene.  Small amounts of camera shake can be aesthetically awful if they're the artefacts from inadequate OIS + IBIS + EIS stabilisation, whereas much more significant amounts of camera shake can be aesthetically benign if coming from a heavier rig without IBIS or OIS.
If more stabilisation is better, maybe it would be better overall to have a physical solution that can be used for those shots?
Even if there aren't good options for those things, maybe the results would be better if those shots were just avoided somehow?  In todays age of social media and shorts etc, having large camera moves that are completely stable is basically a special effect, and maybe there are other special effects that can be done in post that are just as effective but are much easier to shoot?

Two thoughts from me.
If you close your eyes and imagine each scenario, how do each of them make you feel?
What is never really talked about is that if you feel like you're having to argue or strong-arm your equipment then you'll be in a bad mood, which isn't conducive to a happy set, getting good creative outputs, or just enjoying your life.  I think people dismiss this, but if you're directing the talent then this can really matter - people can tell if you're in a good mood or distracted or frustrated etc and people tend to take things personally so your frustrations with the rig can just as easily be interpreted by others that you're not happy with their efforts.
The odd little image technical niggle here or there won't make nearly as much difference as enjoying what you do vs not.
When it comes to IBIS vs Giroflow vs EIS etc, it's worth questioning if more stabilisation is better.  For the "very dynamic handheld shots" having a bit more camera motion might even be a good thing if it is the right kind of motion.  Big budget productions have chosen to run with shoulder-mounted large camera rigs and the camera shake was pleasing and added to the energy of the scene.  Small amounts of camera shake can be aesthetically awful if they're the artefacts from inadequate OIS + IBIS + EIS stabilisation, whereas much more significant amounts of camera shake can be aesthetically benign if coming from a heavier rig without IBIS or OIS.
If more stabilisation is better, maybe it would be better overall to have a physical solution that can be used for those shots?
Even if there aren't good options for those things, maybe the results would be better if those shots were just avoided somehow?  In todays age of social media and shorts etc, having large camera moves that are completely stable is basically a special effect, and maybe there are other special effects that can be done in post that are just as effective but are much easier to shoot?

Sadly sold the G9II. I realized I need good high ISO performance, and seems PDAF is disabled at real high ISOs. I scored a canon r6 for $929 and other than the overheating it’s great. And I can live wijt the overheating for how I shoot. IBIS can genuinely compete with LUMIX by having DIS on standard and using adobe’s warp stabilizer, somehow warp stabilizer absolutely thrives at stabilizing the type of leftover shakiness and artifacts of canon’s IBIS + DIS combo. Very consistently stable without warpy artifacts. Great high ISO performance. Lovely image in CLOG3. 
 
I did like the G9II. Its image was great. Best Ibis I’ve ever used. Very comfortable.  Just realized I need better high ISO performance. Yes I could have gotten a super fast zoom like the sigma 18-35 1.8/speedbooster or Panasonic 10-25mm 1.7. But sometimes I REALLY need to push things at weddings or concerts, shooting at ISOs like 25,600. That’s beyond what the Gh7/G9II can handle. 

Hello, I hope everyone is well!
Even though I’m not really active on camera forums anymore, I frequently read the EOSHD blog and every now and then the forum, so I saw the thread and thought I would respond.
Because it wasn’t ”poof gone”, it was announced on the channel over a year ago and mentioned in the last three videos.
Before going into why, super flattered that this thread exist. I mean that.
So here are some thoughts on the matter and why I took it down.
Hobby vs Work
YouTube was never my job, just a hobby. So was video making and photography, in the beginning.
When starting the channel I was working as a producer after a couple of years as a radio/TV reporter. So I started the channel to keep my practical skills fresh. And to keep up with the development, which was huge at the time. The DSLR revolution, Blackmagic, cheaper editors etc.
Fast forward a couple of years and I started making more videos at work again. At the same time I pretty much lost all interest in doing it as a hobby. And actually canceled the channel.
Winston Churchill was definitely right in saying that work and hobbies should not be too similar. 
But what I had discovered was a passion for still photography, which I had pretty much no experience with. So I started making videos again.
That’s why my videos became very repetitive and short. I didn’t care about that part, I just wanted to display my stills work and get feedback, talk to the community, experiment with cameras and develop.
After a few years I became a good enough photographer that my new employer noticed and just like that I was shooting stills professionally all the time. And I still do (I work in marketing and PR). It’s a huge bonus in my field and if you are good at it you will never be out of work.
So photography also became less and less of a hobby.
Instead I found other hobbies. They where things that for example got me out into nature, so photography tagged a long a while, as a secondary activity. But eventually it faded. It was also nice to do things and not share it with people. I know I probably could have a very successful channel by making videos about my current hobbies, and even make some money. But I never really wanted a channel for the sake of a channel. And always had a full time job.
The fact is that at no point would I had been able to live of my channel, not even at the peak. Even with sponsors it was never more that a regular salary (in my field and country). But as long as it was a hobby and I was glad to do it, it was a welcome addition to finance camera gear.
 
Time
At the same time as my channel started to feel less fun and other hobbies started taking my time, I started a family. So.. you get the idea: full time job + family + 2-3 hobbies = no YouTube.
Upkeep 
So why take it down, why not leave it for the community? I did..  at first.
Like some of you pointed out, the YouTube crowd in the photography/video space is generally nice and positive. That is my experience as well.
Early on I learned that a good way of keeping the trolls away was to be present. Respond and engage. Trolls are usually idiots or cowards, so they don’t like getting push back.
But once I stopped making videos, views and comments obviously went down. But the trolls started coming back. Not so much after me, and I don’t care about that. But agains the community. The people commenting started being nasty towards each other.
I felt a responsibility to moderate, which was annoying. That’s when the thought about simply removing it started to grow.
It wasn’t an impuls. It was an internal debate that went on for months. And the issue grew much much larger than a couple of trolls. 
I started thinking about five years ahead, 10 years, 30 years..
This post is already way too long so I won’t go into all of it. But I think you get the idea when I say:
Privacy or when the content no longer reflects the creator. Digital minimalism, control over one’s narrative, inactive or outdated content. Risk of misuse of content  due to me not checking the terms updates. Closure.
 
So there is a looong ramble :)
 
To keep in spirit of the forum I can charge my current gear for pro work :)
For the longest time I used the EOS-R for 75% of all my work and the R5 (rental)  for the rest. It wasn’t mine but my employer told me to buy whatever I wanted. Paired it with a 28, 35 and 70-200. 70/30 stills/video.
 
The R5 is peak camera imo.
 
Today is a little different. I started working for a new company about a year ago and again was told to buy what I needed. I would have bought the R5 without hesitation if it wasn’t for the Sigma 35-150/2-2.8.. I just had to have it. So I ordered the Nikon Z6iii. It’s not as good overall as the R5 for me and what I like in a tool camera. But it’s 90% there. And coupled with that lens it’s becomes on par.
 
//MB

MFT has been dead for decades now - everyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the last 10 years knows this.
What people don't know is that due to a quirk in quantum physics and the way that time works, MFT was actually dead before it was invented.
This means that my GH7 and GX85 and OG BMPCC and BMMCC never existed, don't exist, and when MFT finally "dies" somehow will disappear from my house.
I bet you even think the earth is round...   some people are just too much!

Really sad if he has indeed given up on YouTube.
He's still on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/mattiasburling
Maybe we should ask him if he's alright?

Nice!
The other thing to consider when testing ISO and noise in the final image is the delivery part of the pipeline.  If I shot in two different modes and then processed them differently in my NLE, I might be able to tell the difference between them in my NLE.
But no-one except you is watching your footage in your NLE, so you'll be exporting it, probably to h264 or h265, and you might not be able to tell the difference between them at this point.
If you're going to be uploading them to a streaming service, then that service will decompress, process (NR, sharpening, who knows what else) and then brutally re-compress it.
Lots of things are visible in the NLE and are completely gone or mangled beyond recognition in the final export or stream.

Nice!
The other thing to consider when testing ISO and noise in the final image is the delivery part of the pipeline.  If I shot in two different modes and then processed them differently in my NLE, I might be able to tell the difference between them in my NLE.
But no-one except you is watching your footage in your NLE, so you'll be exporting it, probably to h264 or h265, and you might not be able to tell the difference between them at this point.
If you're going to be uploading them to a streaming service, then that service will decompress, process (NR, sharpening, who knows what else) and then brutally re-compress it.
Lots of things are visible in the NLE and are completely gone or mangled beyond recognition in the final export or stream.

Definitely. I did a brief comparison of a VLOG frame and shooting the same in flat with ISO lowered, I used the same node tree I did with my Nikon z6 8 bit flat and was able to get color and highlight rolloff real close. 

Just a note to say that it would probably be worth doing some tests ahead of the event.
Situations like this involve many variables and most often people don't consider all of them because they don't do any methodical tests.  You are assuming that the AF will work differently between different picture profiles, but I would suggest the AF would be operating on the image before the picture profile is applied, so it shouldn't matter...  but, once again, you should test this to confirm.
Another thing to consider is if you can push the shutter angle to 270 degrees or even 360 degrees.  If it's a worship setting then making the footage seem a bit more surreal might be appropriate, and you can get another half or full-stop of exposure this way.
You should also test NR in post - it's not ideal but it might give a better result overall considering none of your scenarios are operating in the cameras ideal operating range.  I've done a lot of shooting with cameras at/beyond their capabilities and when you're pushing things you're trading off the drawbacks of each strategy.

Just make sure you're testing the options in the full image pipeline, so comparing finished 709 grades.  So many people only test one part of the pipeline and ignore the rest.
I haven't really experimented much with the AF on the GH7 as I'm used to the AF on the GX85 etc, and I tend to use manual lenses in lower light.  
AF is very difficult to test as well, and @Davide DB has posted before about how lens-dependent it can be too.
Maybe there are AF tests online?  Playing peekaboo with your camera seems a popular camera reviewer pastime!

I'm not sure how this would translate, but my GH7 does far better when I raise the ISO to get a proper exposure in-camera vs shooting under exposed and raising the exposure in post.  For some reason the shadows are quite noisy, even at native ISOs.  This is shooting in C4K Prores so it's not a codec issue.

Just a note to say that it would probably be worth doing some tests ahead of the event.
Situations like this involve many variables and most often people don't consider all of them because they don't do any methodical tests.  You are assuming that the AF will work differently between different picture profiles, but I would suggest the AF would be operating on the image before the picture profile is applied, so it shouldn't matter...  but, once again, you should test this to confirm.
Another thing to consider is if you can push the shutter angle to 270 degrees or even 360 degrees.  If it's a worship setting then making the footage seem a bit more surreal might be appropriate, and you can get another half or full-stop of exposure this way.
You should also test NR in post - it's not ideal but it might give a better result overall considering none of your scenarios are operating in the cameras ideal operating range.  I've done a lot of shooting with cameras at/beyond their capabilities and when you're pushing things you're trading off the drawbacks of each strategy.

I’m dead 🤣🤣

Formatting is being super weird right now ignore post

Would it be worth quoting Genesis 1:3 as this would solve the high ISO need…
(with apologies)