Yurolov

I was referring to the face af. Typical Fuji.

I like how he keeps praising it and then in the end it completely fails and he just stops the video haha.

Each his own, friend. Crop makes it easier to pull focus was my point. For anyone looking at your work I guarantee they won't know the difference between crop and full frame. Like I said s16 was the gold standard for indie production work where you dont have a focus puller (and that's compared to s35). The 10 bit footage coming out of the canon is undeniably better than the images I used to get with my sony so that improves my stories a lot more than having non-crop, which is a number.

I'm unimpressed by this footage.

Mate to hear people talking it is insane. To keep things in focus with a FF camera u better have a damn good focus puller. For the kind of intimate stories that most people here do and that most of the indie community does s16 was the gold standard. I have s16 and don't have to worry that I don't have autofocus. People on here are like oh ye gotta have full frame at 1.2 so only an eyelash is in focus. Like come one. In my view the Canon allows me to tell better stories than a sony, Nikon or Fuji does. Crop is just numbers.

How about the fact that it is my thread. That convince you? It shows a disdain towards teh consumer - there are many more options out there.

I support andrew here and won't be buying the camera after these antics.

autofocus testing.

af looks up there with canon and sony so good news for those buying.

Internal it is but external is a 10 bit 4:2:2. Internal you get high bitrate ALL-I codecs though.

The requirements are objective so judgment calls (like that an nx1 is better than a c300) aren't considered. Jimmy is right the question is flawed. Neither of the c100 or c200 are broadcast ready, which is why to say that canon are crippling the eos r by giving us a broadcast ready codec at a substantially reduced price doesn't make sense to me, whereas sony can give us a weak codec but its ok cause they give us no crop full frame. Sony may offer you all these specs but the fact is the baseline image and codecs are still very poor and well behind the market - so the next time you speak to them you may want to ask them to explain that. I mean, if they don't think the cameras will compete with the fs5 or fs7, then why not give us a broadcast worthy codec? I can get one from canon for $2,200.00. I wonder how much I will ultimately have to shell out for sony.

The external codec, or is having to use an external monitor too much to ask? Just in broad terms I cant imagine anyone here preferring the fs5 notwithstanding the pro level features. I think there is a considerable overlap in the market when you are talking more about small production companies. If we are talking television then the pro cameras obviously aren't impacted. But to suggest that offering 100mbs 4:2:0 is somehow a limit of the hardware and not a direct result of the marketing heads is disingenuous. I only have to point you to the c200, which isn't broadcast ready for the most part, and ask you which customer is that product targetting? There is considerable overlap there which sales would be lost to mirrorless.

As far as I'm aware the A7 series doesn't allow for broadcast codecs. Canon just gave us one, though. If people think the A7 series is in anyway in competition with their pro line then they are sorely mistaken. Let's see what happens to sales of the Fs5 if they give us 10 bit 60p internal as people seem to be thinking they will in the a7siii. They have been protecting their pro line, indisputably so.

I dont understand this statement. A7 series offers 8 bit 4:2:0 @ 100mbs. Literally the only things not crippled are low light performance, noncrop, and detail. The images you can get from the Fs series are vastly superior. At least with the eos r we get 10 bit 4:2:2 external, which you dont even get with the c200! I dont see how that is protecting, given the cheaper variant meets broadcast standards.

More 10 bit external footage.

Sony can't compete with these skintones and colors short of introducing venice into the picture profiles. The images are very pleasing and, dare I say, 'thick'. Shame the director couldn't get the shots he wanted because of that crop... I think I'll stick to what looks good and what is useable rather than a specs sheet.

I believe no crop unless you are in 4k 60p in which case it is a slight crop. It is a tough one because I think this is the camera everyone wanted the xh1 to be. Sales of that camera should plummet. I think fuji will be forced into bring out an xh2 fairly quickly to the detriment of those who have already invested. It was always a head scratcher when the xh1 came out knowing the xt3 was in the pipeline. I think people should take a wait and see approach with this one as you will probably get 4:2:2 in the xh1 with the ibis. The problem with the fuji system is that there isn't any great stabilised lenses to assist with shakiness. Looking at the cinema 5d footage I can see the wobble.

4-2-0 - that's where the complaints will be. Isn't the missing two more important than the 10?

I agree with your points, Andrew, but I disagree with your figures. You can get a very good setup for $3128 usd. I think it compares favourably to the competition for the reasons already listed and especially in the context of the canon ecosystem. If I have to go into Sony for instance I am spending in excess of that amount because I need to purchase lenses, which is cost prohibitive. And frankly I don't like the Sony image. For canon people it is an affordable option considering the full frame stills capabilities. The camera is not without issues, but for some of us the most important things are image and usability. Notwithstanding the massive crop and its other ailments, I still think canon has the best image and the best usability which has only extended with the new ND filters.

Seeing as Sony users represent a minority of the market I would suggest they don't need to. I read somewhere Canon users are most likely to jump to Sony so I think this camera is more an answer to that, which makes sense given Canon's market dominance. Like I said it is comparable to a c100 which is APS-C, but also I get a 30 megapixel full frame stills camera to boot. You are correct about the XLRs but the Eos R has many advantages - including fullframe 1080p 4:2:2 10 bit, 4k APS-C 4:2:2 10 bit. Better autofocus, and full frame stills capabilities. No I am not - the rolling shutter is giving me second thoughts. But I stand by the numbers I gave above. I still think for Canon shooters it is a value proposition. I have tried shooting other brands, but there is nothing that compares to the Canon image and ease of use. The internal Nds alone mean more to me than the 8 bit or FF non-cropped.

Point is that most people have ef lenses. I doubt anyone will buy the 50 1.2 and 28-70 for this camera (perhaps for the more high end models to come in the future). But those are ridiculous prices. But I don't see it as prohibitive given the following setup:- Ef full frame lenses to shoot stills (which I and many people already own) - no cost. Body - 2229 Nd adapter - 399 Video lens: efs 17-55 mm 2.8 IS - ideal for vlogging and film making on a cropped sensor. IS makes the camera useable handheld. So you get 4k apsc equivelent footage stabilised with clog and internal nd filters - $500 usd (used) For those of us familiar with canon it is not unlike the c100 in 4k in that respect but with autofocus. The only major downside I see is the rolling shutter (not present in c100) and the fact that ef lenses with dpaf are naturally noisy. Plus, you have the option of 1080p full frame, and external 10 bit 4:2:2 in either mode. The total cost of this setup is $3128 usd. The c100 mak ii is currently 3499 on B&H. For those of us who know, trust and love the canon ergonomics, color and IQ - I think it is a value proposition if you know what you are buying. It is also a fairly powerful tool at that price point. SO I have to disagree with your post/sentiments.

clog is internal if 8 bit

Thing is you are still getting a full frame stills camera with 30 megapixels. The video crop is fine if u need to shoot photos and vids. Some of the advantages more than outweigh that inconvenience. Xt3 cant do full frame stills. So it doesnt compete.