MdB

Ban people because they don't agree with you... classy. "Dishonest. Misleading. Unnecessary." Selection and omission Andrew, ever heard of it? You said specifically Log. Log is only through the HDMI. Log is only on an external recorder. Everyone must conform or hit the highway eh? Ohhh look at the Nikon, it's superb. Boy Canon are shit. Better?

Almost looks as good as a Canon, weird praise Andrew. Wait, wait, wait. Has logic totally escaped you? This is what you have to say about the EOS R (which we know deep down you love and why you keep pulling his / her hair): "10bit is only via HDMI. Some may see this as progressive. I don’t. It’s a hangover from the past that pleases nobody but the external monitor manufacturers. HDMI is the worse connector known to man. Back in 2014 I did not want to use a bulky recorder on the Sony A7S to get 4K, yet they think I want to use it here just to get a small incremental improvement in image quality? HDMI is not really an uncompressed signal. It isn’t like having 14bit RAW data or real 10bit ProRes 4444. It is crippled 10bit and looking at the image might not even be real 4:2:2. On top of that the shitty cable can fall out at any moment. The 10bit processing is INSIDE the EOS R so I don’t see why I should have to buy an expensive add-on to get at it. Panasonic and soon Sony with the A7S III and Fuji with the X-T3 route their 10bit processing to an SD card, without any compromise to ergonomics, weight, wobbly cables or added costs." This issue seems to only apply to Canon, because once we are talking about Nikon again it is like the saviour has come to town to offer us 10bit and Log ONLY via HDMI. Let's say that again, in order to use Log or 10bit on the NIKON you need an external recorder. Now want to re-read what you said about those things? At least it would have log and *surprise* also look like a 1DC. Lolololol "I only have one concern - the complete lack of any interesting lenses to actually, you know, use on the thing"...

Why not 1" or 1/2.3"? It's closer to S35 than it is any other standard format.

Oh here we go 'bro'. Clearly you're a clueless drongo and one with nothing to back up his mouth. So let's try starting here: https://www.eoshd.com/2017/08/slow-mo-shootout-camera-gives-detail-120fps/ The A99 II comes out on top. Ahead of the GH5 which is ahead of the Leica SL which is ahead of...wait for it... Your drongo noggins 1DX II. The A99 II is the same as the A7R III. The A7 III is considered to be better than the A7R III. That's not focus breathing. Get a clue, then come back. Also not breathing. For what? Got an example? *sigh* get a clue. Find an example where the A7 III is demonstrably worse than the 'top' contenders? Bro, I don't care about brands. Just dumb shit comments.

Hahaha sounds like a bunch of excuses. Sooooo 1 stop difference is lens is unimportant, but going from crop to full frame is a world away. Do people have an actual clue?

I think I may have. When it was rumoured on the fanboy sites it was the most amazing thing ever. When reality struck and it was a $6k behemoth that is MF only... LOLZ. The 50/1.2 from Nikon won't be a dime cheaper. Wonder if we'll dig this up then (in a few years when it actually finally lands). In the mean time instead of spending $3k on a miraculous f/2 zoom lens, we can instead all rush out and spend $2400 on a Nikon f/2.8 zoom plus another $250 for an adapter and LOLZ all the way to the bank with our very savvy $350 saving Because that Canon is clearly RIDICULOUSLY overpriced. LOLZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Sure didn't. That is one thing that is kind of annoying for sure. Only works with adapted lenses. I don't know how that means much in my hypothetical C50 / C100 III? I was just presenting the same camera in a slightly different guise for an alternative context.

Focus breathing is from lenses, not AF systems. I don't know what focus modes people use, but the AF is excellent in the modes where you just have a focus box and keep it over your subject. Tracking gets murkier. People confuse tracking and AF-C all the time. Are you sure you're looking at the right camera? I've seen you say the same thing in a lot of threads, but the A7 III 120p spanks most things out there. Perhaps someone was using the S&Q modes (which work differently to the 100/120p mode)? Or maybe you're referring to the A6300/6500 which indeed had pretty awful 120p. Just keep in mind that adapted lenses effectively get no AF on the A7 III. I am not a huge fan of the Sony lens range (there is some good stuff in there) but as someone who uses a number of different brands I like to keep to EF because it is adaptable, but does limit the uses on a Sony. The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 RXD however is an absolute peach of a lens, small, fast, awesome AF, great on gimbals etc plus it is VERY reasonably priced. I would take the extra stop of the Sony + Tamron combo over the Nikon + f/4 zoom personally. Nikon has 10bit, but only to an external recorder and the situations your in that is going to be very awkward IMO. You also don't get Log internally either. Sony's Picture Profiles enable you to create pretty much whatever colour look you want in camera - Which is handy as well. It does seem like Canon are making you sad. Not those other brands though, they seem like they're both perfect

So what ever will you use? I think they all seem like over hyped, under delivering toys (except the BMP4K). And of those toys, because that's all any of them are, the Canon suits me best.

Seems to me there was no hype. Hype perhaps that it was going to be mega disappointing? You thought it was crap before and now think it's what? Where is the let down? At least something we can agree on. Sony do. Samsung did. Nobody else has what it takes at the moment. Canon steadfastly use their own sensors (except in compacts). When they design them for video they make them to the right pixel dimensions. When they make hybrids, there's a crop. 5DSR II sensor. Definitely. Do you think that will be a video-centric model? Do Sony and Nikon do video centric models with massive MP counts? Also it won't be 50MP, more like 60MP. Will be a scaled up version of the M50 sensor. If that uses the same area for the crop, I dunno what that works out to 3x maybe? It's about 1" on the M50. It will be about as good in video as the 5DSR is... Is it? Well looks like you have a winner. Buy three I had the A7 III, couldn't sell it fast enough. At least I made a few bucks on it because of the queue to get one (not scalping either, still well below retail). Sold within 10 minutes. I will buy this R. I have zero doubt I prefer it over the A7 III and haven't even used it yet. Your experience may be different. Sorry does the A7 III have 10bit? 3.6MP EVF? 2.1MP LCD. Usable touch interface? Good colour? All-I internal codec? Dual pixel AF? Fully articulated screen? WHY are you living in 2005 SONY?! Seriously don't get the rage. It sure is. Apparently it is quite hard. RED crop in different resolutions. So do Arri. But lets all cut ourselves because a $2k Canon (we were never going to buy anyway) does too

Top dollar? You were expecting better than 1DX II performance in a $2.3k camera? It is significantly cheaper than the 1DX (1/3) a grand cheaper than the 5D IV, but eclipses them both in video (1DX does have some advantages). But then look at the C line, the C200 doesn't have 10bit. It has a similar sized sensor area for video (somewhat bigger) but also has Log, DPAF, EVF, ND filters etc. This is not 'that' far off a C200, for $2.3k. Why all the hand wringing? It's not a terrible camera. If you can't do something decent on this I doubt a full frame is going to save you (I don't mean 'you' specifically, I mean it in a general sense). Blackmagic S35 sensors aren't quite S35. Nobody complained when Canon APS-C is 1.6x crop vs 1.5x crop, everybody just thinks it's the same. The minor difference here is just that, minor. Let me ask you this: Canon release a brand new 'C50' or maybe 'C100 III'. It has a 1.7x 8MP 'close to' S35 4K sensor. It does 4K 10bit out with C-Log, but still only has 8bit internal. Has ND filters. It has the best EVF and LCD to date on any C-series camera. Has DPAF across the whole frame with touch selection, peaking, DPAF focus aids and more. Fits really well on a Gimbal too. What would you think is a reasonable price for that camera? $50? Total rubbish wouldn't wipe you butt with it?

Honestly the 1DX II sensor would have probably 'fixed' all the complaints. But being Canon they would have come thick and fast anyway. There seems to be some weird genuine rage at this camera (and company... and anyone who isn't enraged). I think a 1DX II sensor version is coming. People will probably cry about it too. But 'maybe' they will have slightly less rage.

1.4kg is 'nearly' 2kg? Maybe it's 'nearly' a tonne? Obviously it is heavy, but it really isn't much bigger than (say) my 85mm Art. That's hardly massive. People shoot with 70-200mm f/2.8's every, single, day. Let's have some perspective. Also there are plenty of UWA lenses that are getting in this same territory, I don't hear to hand wringing about that. Absolutely! Those Singer fanboys are militant Zing!

Looks like. It is a fairly bland camera. Always knew Canon were going to mirrorless-ify the 5D IV guts. It was always going to be not that fast (anyone used a 5D IV in live view? The claims about it's abilities were grossly over exaggerated by fanboys - Claim about how great DPAF is). I don't think there are going to be many rushing to buy it. To be fair, 5D IV users (and 1DX II and 6D II) already have the majority of what's 'new' in mirrorless, i.e. decent live view. Nikon users are 'gaining' much more for their system with the Zeeees than Canon users are with the R. With the Nikon being $800? So is Nikon's... but 35mm shorter. Yep. But it's also an f/1.2. Well that's a pretty unique f/2. Very unique in fact. Plus it is only marginally more expensive than the latest round of f/2.8 pro zooms. This lens is a big deal. I expect this lens will cause more interest and potential professional switchers than any mild body spec differences (especially in video). Lenses like this make a system. How many event and wedding shooters are going to be lining up for this? The body isn't that interesting, the lenses are. Buy the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and latest Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 and you've saved a whopping $300 over the Canon 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro and 28-70mm f/2. Well plus you'll need the adapter which is how much again? $249? Now you've saved $50. I'll take the Canon thanks. That's kind of the point though no? I mean you're right, the new R and Z are really mostly for existing users to use adapted lenses right? So at least the Canon launch lenses are offering something unique. Something that makes people actually want to bother with buying new ones rather than just adapting. I've never found f/2.8 standard zooms very exciting. Now I am buying in a system just for one (reasonably expensive) standard zoom. Sure! But they aren't just making replicas of their DSLR line in the mirrorless mount. They are actually taking advantage of the differences to make unique lenses (the 24-105 less so really, but lets call it a kit zoom). Yes I'm aware that Nikon's f/1.8 primes are more advanced than their DSLR counterpart, but Sony released similar(ish) lenses for their system 5 years ago and got slammed for not being 'professional' enough. Same with their f/4 trinity, panned for not being professional and 'slow'. A7R III has the same sensor as A7R II from two years ago. Z7 same year old sensor as the D850. The D750 had the same sensor as the D600... And RX1 and A99 and VG900 and A7 etc kept pumping that thing out for a good half decade (or more). A7 III has a downgraded sensor from the nearly 2 year old A9. Sorry where is the miraculous new tech being poured into all these cameras that aren't the R? Their f/2.8 standard zoom is going to be how much cheaper than the Canon f/2? I mean it's only another year away, a lot of releases can happen in that time too. If one wants f/2.8 zooms they can adapt the ones already available. Again just replacing like for like. Really? These are my 'Zed bashings': - They haven't released any lenses to entice me to the 'system'. As a non F-mount user they offer me nothing. I don't buy a system just because it has one body with a mild spec increase. Especially not from a brand that has a distinct history of abandoning anything at the drop of a pin if it doesn't make them a buck in an over bloated company. - I see no distinct advantage over the Sony's, despite what fanboys like to think (not a bad thing if you are an F-Mount user these are finally a great option to you, the Sony's are a very capable bit of gear and to come even close to them is an achievement, let alone exceeding them on spec in some areas). So for the first one, yes the R DOES have some lenses I am interested in. I also suspect that Canon will have a C line camera with this mount in the near future. The adapter with drop in filter is MORE useful to me than any video feature that Nikon has. That simple thing alone. Plus yes, I am invested in EF glass so anything that can take EF (which is the point) is more interesting to me than something that doesn't or won't. Second. Sure. Mostly the R isn't as good as the Sony's either. Except for the use of EF glass, which is pretty good on the Sony's for stills but lacks in the video dept. The Canon isn't perfect. The Nikon isn't perfect. The Sony isn't perfect. The Fuji isn't perfect. The Panasonic isn't perfect...

Hahaha, still not native. Try again. Fanboy talk. I don't need to, I have zero interest in it - Did you not understand that? They have no lenses I want and I'm not about to start buying F mounts to try and fill in the enormous gaps. The Zee launch was at best pathetic as a new system. Way behind what Sony managed to do 5 years ago. Way behind Fuji. Way behind what Canon did days later. No amount of minor 'spec' differences and fanboyism is going to change that for me. MAYBE if they opened the mount so there would be a future better selection of lenses than what Nikon wants to provide and the ability to say adapt EF mount, but until then the 'system' is rubbish. It's ONLY use is for existing F-mount fanboys. Then you bang on about how compatible it is with F-mount. Guess who doesn't care?! ANYBODY who doesn't have F mount. Oh wow! Yeah you sound it. "It's so perfect with every lens ever because some paid Nikon F mount fanboy said so..." Nikon have the catching up to do. Again, this camera is for existing fanboys only. Fanboys are always grateful, they 'take it' so gleefully. You don't say. Seems like you're chock full original thought too. What do you mean 'still'? It has been 'announced' for a week. It has been available on the market ZERO amount of time. The Canon might have a crop, but it too has LOG and 422 10bit (at least it has log internally) AND it works with my lenses. Granted I think the EOS R ALSO is just for fanboys with existing lenses. I am not so much a fanboy of Canon (ugh, can't think of anything worse) but I do have a lot of EF glass because it has become the de facto standard for adaptability, I can use it on pretty much any mount... EXCEPT Nikon. If only Nikon had some really compelling glass... a promise of a dumb 58mm later is not compelling. By the way I don't give a shit that you don't give a shit. I shit on your lack of giving a shit. I also will happily shit on your Nikon. Bahahaha! So being constructive to the group is circle jerking over your favourite brand. Funny. Not when they've got great fanboys like you Oh about time some logic... How about you go and apply that. Fuji looks great, at least it has some lenses A me too product with a slight spec boost but no lenses. It's hardly a game changer. It stops the exodus from the big two. Same with the R. Sounds super interesting. Something I could definitely get behind.