padam

Let's break it down a bit more then: they are all the same modes effectively(some differences with processing as I mentioned with the 1080p), only more cropped in by the M50 by default, because it is already a crop sensor. I think the 720p 120fps which is the only real difference, is almost completely useless, even softer than the already very soft EOS R in the with the same frame rate. I also don't think it is really necessary to use any kind of EF-S glass on an RP (most of them are not constant aperture zooms, why would you want that for video anyway) EF just works just fine for photo and video (if you are vlogging for instance and want a wider angle 10-18mm f4.5-5.6, it is definitely unusable in 4k - even if there was downscaled cropped 1080p like on the EOS R, it wouldn't matter that much. So much more logical to stick to 1080p and use EF glass anyway, not EF-S) Apart from a really excellent value 11-22mm f4-5.6 wide-angle zoom, and generally being very compact for an APS-C camera, the M system really doesn't offer anything special (yes, the recent 32mm f1.4 is also quite nice, but not cheap and there will be an RF 50mm f1.8 with IS included...)

You can find M50 footage on the same channel, I think the RP 4k image looks crisper, 1.6x crop vs 2.56x total crop is pretty significant to me and the low-light is no contest. Yes, you can add a 3rd party SpeedBooster for more monnies, but why not just go for this one instead, especially when it comes bundled with the 100$ adapter (or you can add the control ring or even ND, cheap EF glass, etc., etc.) So as some suggested, while they are in different price categories, it certainly pushes the M50 back a little bit (keeping the EF-M system slightly separate from the rest doesn't help either) Tried it for a short time, I don't have big hands but it feels too small for me, not the same level of controls. For 1080p it is more complicated, better low-light with different look on FF versus better quality 1080p on the M50 but with more limited lens choices.

I hate to say this, but while it really does not offer much, it does that rather well at its price point (pros and cons in the video description)

My tip is on the M5/M6 II is the flip-screen (hopefully) with the better controls and build quality the DPAF enabled for 4k (surely) same M50 sensor (likely, the two codenames certified for 24MP) not a huge amount of change, but at least not a significant increase on the pricing either. I don't see them pushing further with that same battery. Just because there is going to be a high-end 7D-level camera, its primary target of sports and wildlife will not change, so for me doesn't mean that it will not have a further crop for video (but probably improve on frame rates if that is a factor, maybe like 4k60p, the R has no slow motion whatsoever in crop mode), if Canon really showcases some new advancement for video, it would make sense to debut it in the most expensive model that they make first, like they did with 4k60p. But I see your point perfectly on the R, Canon is just being too clever in what they (precisely) offer with every model that they make, they just give a little more every time in comparison to what they take away, and it is still working for them.

The EOS R looks like a nice enough choice for EF-S lenses, it seems quite obvious to me, that they are not going to give crisper full-sensor downsampled 4k in their much cheaper APS-C cameras, the R would certainly loose its video appeal (even if what it offers seems inadequate in many people's eyes). Even C-Log is questionable in a flagship M-series camera, but the 2.56x crop (although Focal Reducer compatible at least) would keep it isolated from the others. A proper video-based S35mm XC-series camera, sure, why not (at least it is still an additional model that they can sell), but for how much, based on the XC15 pricing with a much smaller sensor.

A few Canon models can do HDR video in 1080p, but if you move the camera the rolling shutter will make the two separate exposures visible. As technology improves, they can probably do it in 4k with less artifacts.

That is exactly my problem, just looking at specs sheets, price tags, claiming this one better than that arguing etc. and really not much else. I guess that's why lurking at forum is useless in general, because there might not be that many succesful people spending time there and providing useful advice rather than enthusiasts being very enthusitastic (or deeply hateful) towards something.

I am aware of that, mentioned it in another thread, I just don't see it as such a useful feature for most of the users (yes the have announced it for their newer DSLRs, is that really useful?), rather than bragging about: oh yes, it does (or rather will) have this 'game-changing' feature and it 'completely owns' the competition. I am also aware that so far, the AF does not seem to work well with N-Log. The sensor capabilities like 4k60p may be more important for the future for some, at least that's surely going to be the things the Sony users will start to brag about. Using an external record costs a lot more money and also defeats the purpose of a small camera (the Z6 can also overheat with an external recorder if 10-bit output is selected, 8-bit is fine, is prores RAW going to be better) Everyone trashes on the Panasonic size and that 10-bit 4:2:2 codec is a paid update (but it does have 10-bit 4:2:0 internal) and yet it was probably more thoughtfully designed for these kinds of uses from the get go. While there is a huge enthusiatic crowd looking at potentially the ultimate photo/video camera ever since the 5DMk2 or earlier, it looks like there is always something that's just not right to the point where I start to think it is almost little bit like a dead end and it is better to have at least one device specifically focused on each purpose, at least anybody who has switched to something like a C200 says how much more liberating it is to use, despite its inherent limitations.

Again, this is just reading off a spec sheet, yes there are plenty of positive but only some things are definitely distorted here. For instance, with the paid upgrade the internal codec of the S1 is definitely stronger (but XQD/CFExpress seems totally wasteful at this point, why not use it when it becomes less expensive and more useful, 1st gen adopters I guess...), and let's not ignore the cropped 4k60p either With internal recording the Sony really isn't that much different (the Canon does have way less internal compression, also ignored) and they will offer more in their next camera. And that's all just specs, actual impressions aren't as common, especially directly against competitors, and they can differ: I can only say that I can't put it into words, but I see it similarly, the BMPCC4k is the other one besides Canon, which looks much less like video to me (but with less rolling shutter) and I also like the concept of EF glass(how many were produced, 130,140 million?), AF capable but also no silly electronic focusing, you attach it to your ND-filter RF-mount adapter, and you're done. Of course once has to pay more for a higher-end camera to unlock more of what this system is capable of, but in some aspects, there is actually more there as well(but definitely not everything, like FF video or raw recording)

Yes of course, but in that case of adapting lenses, apart from a better HDMI and stabilization (although it is 3-axis only for non-Z-mount) out what does it acually offer in comparison to Sony and they will also release the the A7SIII in a few months, yes it will be pricey, but with even better focus on FF video, so no doubt it will get a lot of orders from existing A7SII or A7III users. I can see why some people would choose Nikon in the same as they would choose a Panasonic, I just can't see any of them as a huge hit, when there are many more users with Rebel cameras hanging around taking videos, most of them might just stay within the brand. Canon can simply put the M50 sensor in a 200D successor and it would probably still sell well.

Probably not, they are actually trying to convince new (amateur) or existing customers to step up to (or start with) FF. It could become a lot more succesful than the EOS R. Yes, the 4k is not really useable, but hey it is still an EOS and it shoots HD

It is not underrated, it is simply sidelined for video, because while it is much stronger on paper, it is not in an ecosystem that is being used extensively for video production - like Canon EF for that matter. The platform is not nearly as sturdy with lenses that were not designed for video and focus backwards. And maybe it is just me, but I don't think that the image looks that nice (maybe with heavy grading from raw it is completely different, but that's a whole different workflow).

I thought it wouldn't even come out with 4k video at all and pitching it completely as a stills camera, so they overdelivered ?

That's BS, they have their own DPAF sensors and patented their own BSI (DPAF) sensors as well. And as I said earlier, they are not really behind, they can simply put whatever kind of sensor they want in their cameras to differentiate them.

Yes.

It is unrealistic to expect no cropping at this stage, knowing how Canon works. Yes they are aware of customers' needs, but they don't necessarily pay full attention to it. 10-bit out and C-Log are a definite go, but in my opinion, they might actually increase the crop factor a bit further just to keep stills and video cameras separated, if for instance, they increase the megapixels to 24 on the 1DX Mark III and already put that into a mirrorless camera as well. Well, at least it might not be 6k$ at launch, like the 1DX II

Well I think Canon will be sticking to the same formula, and the mirrorless equivalent is going to be big, too, but probably not as much. It may even use the same LP-E19 battery. The S1 isn't particularly small either and yet the battery life isn't nearly as good, so there are pros and cons to each concept.

How can it be outdated (for video) if even without Canon Log, it still has the best looking image out of all the stills cameras?

It makes no sense at all, even if heat is not a problem, the readout is already much slower on the sensor itself, it could break new records for jelloing. But the 1DX II sensor has a pretty decent readout, so it is not like that they are way behind in technology, you just have to pay much more for it or pay less and get an inferior sensor like this. And you could say the same for "When Panasonic figures out AF, why the colors don't look nearly as good" etc. etc.

Maybe Canon is thinking: more drama -> more recognition -> more sales

Of the two, the EOS R simply looks much more appealing for photo/video with the feature set it offers, it just needs to come down in price. Maybe I haven't seen enough (and I hope that I am wrong), but it looks like the RP 1080p video is still only at the 6D II level. As a compact stills camera though (or maybe as a backup manual focus 4k camera on sticks), its seems decently designed, and its price point seems to make Sony zealots a bit more anxious than usual

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7fQ9nD-bwQ Interestingly, 1080p 60p in APS-C mode is downsampled from 4k so technically, the sensor is 4k60p capable in crop mode.

A9 with five stars without S-Log? Fanboys.

I think XEVC is something that they can use to sell their video cameras with, at least in the past it was a later, consumer variant, that made it into their smaller cameras (XAVC-S).

It will be interesting to see how the L-mount alliance will turn out. If it turns out to be exciting, it could trigger m43 users once more. While m43 is anything but dead, it certainly won't be in the spotlight, which is a triggering effect on its own.