Davide DB

You're right, 6K and open gate. But even without mentioning the crippled hammer, Canon has always been careful not to cannibalize its own products. Can a C50 be better than its sisters in the cinema line?

Still I don't see an edge on a 5 years old FX3. What I'm missing? Maybe RAW? FX3 files edit like butter

In the Alps, for clickbaiting purposes, they are still pushing the idea that it is an l-mount camera. ATM the most credible option is that it's just the S1R 🤣 That youtuber has also an S1R and he was trying the Blazar lens with ND filter on it. So the blurred camera (that he confirmed it will revealed next week) could be anything

In the Alps, they are saying that the compact blurry camera could be the new DJI or even a Panasonic (!), because the lens adapter that is visible is a Viltrox PL-L-Mount. They're going crazy 🤪

OMG! What you just reminded me of!

This really struck me. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vincentsmadja_when-fashion-holds-its-breath-several-activity-7368221093104472064-NL9v

Nor the camera in the photos. 6K@raw in that fan-less small body? Did they do a miracle putting a fan inside that? The German author of the video assured that it's a new camera but not a Canon. WHo knows. According to rumors, in few week we will have: - Canon C50 - Nikon ZR - DJI FF (Maybe) What a mess 🙂

And finally we will discover that it's the DJI 😄

https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/blurred-images-of-the-new-canon-c50/ Edit: if that one is a VND, then...

The rumors seem to be sure that it's full-frame, 33MP, has an Open Gate, and has RAW. It's funny that there was a short circuit between the rumor sites. Andrea Pizzini's sites got the information first, and the Canon Rumors site had to play catch-up. All the info on a Canon camera was on the Sony rumors site. The Canon rumors site seems like Pravda, a direct mouthpiece for Canon (who isn't today?)

"Why I jumped to Canon" What a time to be alive!

And cameras

You probably didn't waste time reading the various links in the article, but I understand if you hate the person. By the way, the accusations are so serious that if they were false, they could take him to court in an instant, but let's not get into that; it's not my place to defend Cory Doctorow here. Indeed, this statement is a bit strong and, said like that, seems absolutely false. But, following the various links to his previous articles, I believe he was referring to his old article: Tesla sells both 60kWh and 75kWh versions of its Model S and Model X cars; but these cars have identical batteries — the 60kWh version runs software that simply misreports the capacity of the battery to the charging apparatus and the car’s owner. https://memex.craphound.com/2017/09/10/teslas-demon-haunted-cars-in-irmas-path-get-a-temporary-battery-life-boost/ BTW, you were complaining that all of this has nothing to do with my initial post. It absolutely does. In both cases, there's a distortion of the concept of property. In the first case, the major music labels do you the favor of letting you listen to "their" music. In the case Andrew cited, Bloomberg claims to have the copyright even on a POTUS speech. In the magical world of subscription, you don't own a f*** thing and they can revoke everything at any moment. In all cases, you are only enabled to consume. Maybe it's too left-wing? And yet the strong concept of private property and possession of a good doesn't come from there. Ciao

I think this post is enough to understand where we are headed. Adobe's subscription model is laughable in comparison. https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/15/musklemons/