The comprises are few with the other brands. I dont care about price. The more you pay the more you should get. Video camera shopping shouldnt be like tetris. Cheaper should be less features, more money should be more. Newer cameras should offer more with added convenience or features due to technological advancements or whats the point. Most electronics follow that rule except cameras, where it is give and take. Like the 1dx ii having no log modes. Or no 120fps in 1080 on the r5. it's just weird for a company to openingly do shady things.
.
I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly, it is only their tools which are different, but all companies are doing essentially the exact same things openly, whether people notice them or not, like Sony still using the same screen from several years ago, no matter if is their newest, most expensive camera.
Other instances:
Yes Sony now has three cameras with a 12 megapixel sensor and all of its features.
But it is 12MP so what you gain in video, you also loose with regards to stills. You need to buy at least one more additional model, and it's not like these are very cheap for 12MP.
They already had a very powerful 24MP camera with good video in the A9 (and later A9II) but they had to limit it with no picture profiles to make room for other models.
There are other models like the A7III A7RIV A1 and they all have various bits and pieces missing.
And no, I don't foresee an A7IV being as good as an A7SIII either. It will be a strong competitor to the R6, but no more than that.
The so-called hybrid camera always miss something, they do everything at a certain level, just not on the top level.
I am starting to think it is better to have one camera solely for video without having the struggle with ND like a BMPCC6K Pro or a Canon C50 and another solely one for stills and maybe some limited video capability is enough to work as a backup.
1080 120fps is coming on the R5 with a firmware update.
The main limitation other than skipping cropped RAW video options (I am sure the camera is capable of recording it) is the poor thermals.
On the one hand it was deliberate on the other it would have made the camera even more expensive so it would have angered buyers who are looking at it as a stills camera first, video second.
So it is not particularly hard for Canon to simply copy the FX3 concept and make a camera like that with the R5's 8K sensor, that would be much more of a departure from the R5 than the FX3 is from the A7SIII.
That is its biggest weakness and the reason why some reviewers are confused by it, it is nice, it just not that different overall.
Point is, cameras are no different than other electronics, sooner or later you will see something better.