It’s simple, no one bothers you if they think you are taking photographs. Professional video cameras prompt the “do you have a permit to film” questions. They are commonly referred to as “permit cameras”. So long story short, mirrorless bodies fly under the radar.There's nothing at this price point and form factor. I honestly have no idea why video shooters love the SLR style so much—they're designed for viewfinder use—but they do seem to so who am I to argue.
This seems like a pretty specialized camera to me. A lot of people seem to be impressed that it shoots video without overheating. I would say that is indeed fortunate since video seems to be mostly what it is targeted at. I would think that the R5 (or one of the other Sony's) would be a better choice for an "allrounder" solution. It is still not clear to me that the shooting time limitations of the R5 are going to turn out to be a big issue for most people who are considering the camera. I would consider the 12MP a limitation these days -- that's like 10 years ago in resolution.Are they really? I'm not a hardcore video shooter so I'm dumber than the average bear when it comes to stuff like this but to me it seems like a lot of money for that camera.
I see it can shoot 4K60P for over an hour so that's a good thing if that's something you need. So kudos.
What is so appealing that makes it worth that kind of money - and I'm not being sarcastic - a compare and contrast in an 'explain it like I'm five' kind of way would be very helpful.
I should not have said ideal hybrid. 12MP is not enough for stills to which I agree wholeheartedly, but Canon didn't really have to throw 8K and everything else in the R5. It could have settled for less than 45MP and balanced the video specs a bit more to achieve a bit more runtime while still getting enough stills resolution.I hope it works well for you! But... "ideal hybrid", really? Even DPR are pretty clear this isn't so much a hybrid as a video camera that can also shoot stills. Surely an ideal hybrid would do both to the same level. Given how many people said the R6 was DOA because it had "only" 20MP, I'd be surprised if most people thought 12MP was enough for stills shooting. So not ideal at all...?
Rolling shutter is misleading. I can show you great rolling shutter on a smaller sensor like a ZV1/RX100 or a larger FF sensor that is line skipped. I can even show you great rolling shutter by dropping the bit depth as well sacrificing DR. If you look at sensor spec sheets, some of them will detail this. The 1DX3 can ramp up rolling shutter performance in 4K60, but drop down to 30ms in 24/30p.Accroding to Dan Watson's review of a7s III I don't see Sony to be the game changer at all! R5 has less rolling shutter and much better IBIS. Regarding 4k R5 oversampling at 23.98/25/30p has the edge over the sony. Sony from the other has the edge in 4k/60p and 120p cause its readout is 1:1. R6 accroding to Tony Northrup has better 4k than a7s III and better low light until iso 12800 (Ofc R6 can't do 120fps). And I say until because a7s iii has dual iso and at 16000 and up, image gets cleaned by noise. From color perspective I don't like at all a7s III colors. The same muted colors as always.... better though than a7s ii. According to Dan again a7s iii at exterior shooting is overheated faster than R5. R5 from the other overheated faster when shooting interior. Regarding stills there is no competition at all ofc! So people need to understand that spec sheet doesn't tell anything and the real world experience with these cameras is the "key"! For me as a hybrid shooter the R5 ticks all the boxes and it's not threatened at all from a7s III. And Im sure that Canon will find a solution in near future to extend recording times on R5 and R6.
Fair enough Fwiw I don't think there is a 'just right' camera body even in principle. Well, not at the high end, which FF is - for the population at large, maybe it's an iPhone (or other brand equivalent).I should not have said ideal hybrid. 12MP is not enough for stills to which I agree wholeheartedly, but Canon didn't really have to throw 8K and everything else in the R5. It could have settled for less than 45MP and balanced the video specs a bit more to achieve a bit more runtime while still getting enough stills resolution.
Constrained by physics and cost, manufacturers have either chosen a porridge too hot or a porridge too cold approach and nobody has made a porridge good enough that everyone wants to just eat all of it...
It's damned if they do, damned if they don't...Sony will pay people to troll them either way.Canon was criticised for years for 'withholding' features their bodies could maybe have managed (Magic Lantern gave an insight into that), and this time they didn't, and they're being criticised for that (by some folk). Also my suspicion is the heat issues are linked to the extra special IBIS, but time will tell on that one.
Paid or not, I do wonder if Sony 'fans' are the worst in this regard? It feels like that here, but I don't look at Nikon or Sony forums - are Canonites trolling there? We see very little pro-Nikon stuff here like that. It's pretty toxic, anyhow.It's damned if they do, damned if they don't...Sony will pay people to troll them either way.