kye

My take on the situation is that I'm super-happy with the GH7.  It basically does everything I want, and apart from having ultra-sharp ultra-shallow DOF, pretty much does most things that FF does.  It does low-light very well, and is only behind the low-light from FF cameras because they have gotten crazy good.

I am planning to use it on my  custom phone with a Linos Mevis c mount 16mm lens. But it will work also with a bigger sensor. In the past I have used super 8 babies on full frame with great results.

Agreed. I felt the same about the G9II. Lowlight is good. Full frame cameras seem to just be INSANELY good. And seems like the crop of full frame cameras for the most part has been this way for the last few years.  I owned the Nikon Z6 OG from 2020-2025. It has the same IMX410 sensor found in the Sony a7iii, Panasonic S5/S1/S5II/S5IIX. That sensor despite being used in 7 yr old bodies like the z6 or a7iii is great in lowlight, 12,800 ISO and 25,600 ISO never looked bad to me I used to push the z6 so hard with wedding films even dipping into 51,200 ISO and noise was always usable. I dabbled a bit with the G9II in January and lowlight seemed noticeably worse, but at the same time it wasn’t BAD per se and cleaned up well in post. Again I think it’s just that full frame cameras are insanely good. But then again so are crop sensors lol…I was just running some lowlight tests with my friends $649 Canon R50V. With some Denoise in Davinci resolve, 12,800 ISO looked great to my eye. Nuts!  12,800! $649 used to get me a Panasonic G7 and decent lens…how far all these cameras have come. I couldn’t dream of getting that type of result on the G7. But this $649 R50V was extremely impressive lol. We are so dang spoiled. I ended up getting a used canon r6 OG for a very good price ($929), overheating aside its a wonderful cam for $1k average. And looks great at ISO 25,600…
 
I think my biggest isssue with the g9II was PDAF seemed to shut off or be used a lot less when above ISO 2500 or 3200 in a lot of cases. Meaning if you want to rely on autofocus it’s hard to really push things. Because I did find that with some Denoise ISO 6400 and 12,800 were honestly not bad. Maybe I also didn’t have the most optimal lens choices…but when I was recently filming at a summer camp where they had a canon r5 (so I could use the r5 when I wanted and my G9II when I wanted), the r5 seemed to wipe the floor with the g9II at 3200ISO and above especially when pushing things. And unfortunately I just seem to have times where I need to shoot in very very lowlight settings. So full frame is a big help. 

My take on the situation is that I'm super-happy with the GH7.  It basically does everything I want, and apart from having ultra-sharp ultra-shallow DOF, pretty much does most things that FF does.  It does low-light very well, and is only behind the low-light from FF cameras because they have gotten crazy good.

Just scored this Petit Cinevision 1.5x baby anamorphic 

Yep that's the kind of intermediary codec that the ZR needs. But only if Nikon doesn't cook it with that aggressive noise reduction. You know the drill, Fuji had similar issues I seem to remember you pointing out. 
Thing is, I don't buy cameras based on promised or wishful features anymore. Been burned too many times waiting for "coming soon" updates that arrive late, incomplete, or not at all. So as of right now, the ZR is off the table for me. It's not just the codec situation though tbh, the unreliable view assist/exposure tools and first gen quirks also give me cold feet. 
Good to know LT is officially on the roadmap, though.. great for early adopters but I think I'm done gambling on "maybe later". 
 

No, I have a GH5s, but I'd like to upgrade, as I need PDAF among other things.

I apologize for the delay, before I expand, I have to say Kye in a note above said it best. In general I don't find -For me and what I shoot- the ZR get's out of the way and just works, I'm not brand new to Nikon yet find the menu diving a bit of a pain, I also can't understand why I can't assign some common used settings to the first quick menu. Getting a card out once you rigged your camera is a nightmare, have to move the whole thing off and pull off anything on the base to access the card. See below on set's like this it's a bit of a mess and you then have to spend time and make sure your camera is back to the right place! Another challenge is the tragic  H265, I shot a small table top for Sephora the other day and couple of mini clips ended up at 293 GIGs, would have shot it on H265 if it was fine, absolutely no need for red code in a perfectly lit set.
I normally shoot on cameras that just do what they need to do and that's all there is to it, we don't even really think much about the camera during the shoot, for my experience so far the ZR isn't that camera!
Again this is just me, I'm sure there are people who love using the ZR and that's excellent 🙂
Edit: spelling!

While I enjoy following the latest camera releases, there would literally be zero ROI on us switching systems anytime in the next 5 years. 

Yeah 100%. We stayed in the Lumix eco system for years using Canon lenses, and it worked. 3 years ago we finally bit the bullet and dropped like 15 grand into upgrading to Sony bodies and Sigma E mount lenses. That being said, we probably won't do a camera upgrade until these die on us, they more than accomplish anything we need from them. At this point, if we need another body, we can always pick up a used FX30 for like $1200 and it fits in perfectly with our FX6 and A7IVs. 

I find it incredible that people talk about switching bodies / systems all the time without really considering the wider ecosystem of lenses and accessories.  Hell, I've stayed within the MFT system and whenever I get a new MFT body there are still all these extras that I end up being surprised about and inflate the price by 10-15%.  If I was re-buying lenses then it would double/triple/quadruple the cost.
I have no idea what the economics of lenses are, but I wouldn't be surprised if the camera body is now a loss-leader and the lenses where all the profit is.

Fair points for sure. 

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