n8rv wrote:
I actually think the C50 looks like a great camera that fills the Canon video/cinema model gap nicely. If I were currently in the market, I’d probably get one.
And overall a better-spec’d, more professional camera than the ZR. Just didn’t get as much fanfare due to the price difference, the “RED factor”, timing, and different marketing approaches.
Nikon was a lot more aggressive about getting the YouTube shillfluencer hype machine running. Canon’s rollout just seemed quieter.
We all know that Canon is the marketing king and Nikon highly incompetent.
Could it be that the difference of coverage is simply the result of how impacting both cameras are/aren't?
bernardl wrote:
We all know that Canon is the marketing king and Nikon highly incompetent.
Could it be that the difference of coverage is simply the result of how impacting both cameras are/aren't?
Cheers,
Bernard
Probably.
The C50 is a more utilitarian addition to the C line of cameras, while the ZR is Nikon’s first entry into the “cinema” category, with a design and features, at the price, that are more exciting to the vlogger / content creator crowd.
That, combined with what seems like a broader embargo loan-out, definitely gained the ZR a lot more traction. Feels like Canon just kind of lazily announced the C50, barely sent units to anyone but a small handful of brand ambassadors and reviewers, and coverage / footage has been really limited so far.
The C50 is a more utilitarian addition to the C line of cameras, while the ZR is Nikon’s first entry into the “cinema” category, with a design and features, at the price, that are more exciting to the vlogger / content creator crowd.
That, combined with what seems like a broader embargo loan-out, definitely gained the ZR a lot more traction. Feels like Canon just kind of lazily announced the C50, barely sent units to anyone but a small handful of brand ambassadors and reviewers, and coverage / footage has been really limited so far.
I understand that nowadays there is a lot of money spent on the socialism aspect and influencers, but presumably Canon and Nikon know their markets and what people will pay. I'm not sure what the actual sales are compared to internet comments. I know in other business areas serious buyers know what they want and are deciding if the products meet their needs. Maybe more of the social stuff affects the junior or naive to the industry buyers.
At the end of the day, these are just corporations looking to make money. A lot of their decisions are more driven by financial goals than the desire to truly innovate or provide for a community of photographers and videographers. For example, why are Canon and Nikon finally, 4 years later, pushing out FX3 and ZV-E1 clones?
These definitely offer improvements over the cameras they are stacking up against but are not really a paradigm shift. They’re new entries into a section of the market their other competitor has dominated for years. Canon and Nikon just want a piece.
Sure, the seasoned pros are well educated enough to make their own decisions regardless of marketing. Even then (or as a result) not a lot of them are likely to drop money on a new camera model every year. Meanwhile “content creators” / vloggers / junior / naive / impressionable / recreational buyers with the right budget are an ever increasing demographic that can accelerate the brand’s profits and can’t be ignored. So aggressive social campaigns start becoming more important. Nikon has done a better job of it with this rollout. Canon has been overconfident and lazy with theirs, which can turn into a missed opportunity. They’re still on time to pick up the pace.
As previously mentioned, I don’t even think these cameras are in the same tier but the “this or that” of the internet, especially when it comes to new potential buyers, will inevitably pit them against each other.
All IMO obviously. I’m actually glad we have all these new, interesting and capable releases. Hopefully the competition will drive more and faster innovation.
n8rv wrote:
At the end of the day, these are just corporations looking to make money. A lot of their decisions are more driven by financial goals than the desire to truly innovate or provide for a community of photographers and videographers. For example, why are Canon and Nikon finally, 4 years later, pushing out FX3 and ZV-E1 clones?
These definitely offer improvements over the cameras they are stacking up against but are not really a paradigm shift. They’re new entries into a section of the market their other competitor has dominated for years. Canon and Nikon just want a piece.
Sure, the seasoned pros are well educated enough to make their own decisions regardless of marketing. Even then (or as a result) not a lot of them are likely to drop money on a new camera model every year. Meanwhile “content creators” / vloggers / junior / naive / impressionable / recreational buyers with the right budget are an ever increasing demographic that can accelerate the brand’s profits and can’t be ignored. So aggressive social campaigns start becoming more important. Nikon has done a better job of it with this rollout. Canon has been overconfident and lazy with theirs, which can turn into a missed opportunity. They’re still on time to pick up the pace.
As previously mentioned, I don’t even think these cameras are in the same tier but the “this or that” of the internet, especially when it comes to new potential buyers, will inevitably pit them against each other.
All IMO obviously. I’m actually glad we have all these new, interesting and capable releases. Hopefully the competition will drive more and faster innovation. ...Show more →
That has been my point all along-
Canon is yawn/boring/no one is all that interested with its release of the Canon C50.
Nikon shocked and surprised everyone and is getting attention.
Its time Canon starts disrupting itself with some fresh/cool new ideas instead of hoping its EF line carryovers will keep the golden goose.
Canon is yawn/boring/no one is all that interested with its release of the Canon C50.
Nikon shocked and surprised everyone and is getting attention.
Its time Canon starts disrupting itself with some fresh/cool new ideas instead of hoping its EF line carryovers will keep the golden goose.
Nikon made a cheaper, stripped down Z6 III that has their "Red" DNA in it; that's the real sell here, but the thing is, the best use of the camera seems to be as a B-camera for a production using Red cameras. It's barely featured externally, essentially a 'bare-bones' tool. But if you're not using Red (or Nikon) already, why?
Canon made something with a new sensor and is designed to be rigged up much more flexibly, and comes with an audio interface. The Nikon has no provision for such.
They're really very different tools and I'd be excited for either if I were in either of their (different!) niches.
johnctharp wrote:
Nikon made a cheaper, stripped down Z6 III that has their "Red" DNA in it; that's the real sell here, but the thing is, the best use of the camera seems to be as a B-camera for a production using Red cameras. It's barely featured externally, essentially a 'bare-bones' tool. But if you're not using Red (or Nikon) already, why?
Canon made something with a new sensor and is designed to be rigged up much more flexibly, and comes with an audio interface. The Nikon has no provision for such.
They're really very different tools and I'd be excited for either if I were in either of their (different!) niches....Show more →
They already have a smaller rig camera- It’s the Canon C80-
It’s great if we all think Canon’s new C50 is worth the 3900 price point- I expected more of the this release and Canon won’t be getting my Money and I am seriously considering scrapping the brand unless I see some new ideas coming from Canon. It’s the same old crap-
I'm not interested in the C50 or the Nikon ZR, and not because they are a “yawn” or lack innovation. I'm a hybrid shooter like most, not a dedicated video buff or pro. The C50 is extremely specialized and would get used infrequently if I owned one, especially with no EVF. I'm happy with my R6 MK II and R7 for my guitar and talking head videos. In fact, my cameras are overkill for my YouTube needs—and I have an active channel with hundreds of videos and 400,000+ views. My “last year's tech” cameras are easy to use and, most importantly, work equally well for video as well as travel, landscape, and macro stills. In my experience, good video lights and high-quality audio recording and miking technique are much more exciting than the latest C-log favor, extra stop of dynamic range or video features.
The Fuji has slow-ish read times in the best quality modes so if you capture action, features are likely to be distorted. Comparing a $17k camera with $2k and $4k cameras doesn't really make much sense, these are different products for different markets. The Fuji could be compared to the $15k RED Raptor XE VV which has a global sensor with 41 mm width (vs. 44 mm for the Fuji). No distortion. The Fuji, however, has built-in ND filters which the RED does not have.
A C50 or ZR buyer likely wants something less expensive and smaller/lighter.
Tascam will introduce an XLR/TRS adapter for the Nikon ZR in October so that problem goes away, though obviously Canon includes their adapter with the camera, partly explaining the higher price. Also it is noteworthy that the ZR has a 32-bit float audio input which is essentially free of gain adjustment as it has enough dynamic range to record any audio signal. This has become common in recent audio recorders but this is the first camera to include this feature as a built-in. In addition to TASCAM's audio interface, Smallrig has designed cages and related accessories for the ZR, and there will be a future provision to use V-mount batteries (by Nikon).
johnctharp wrote:
Nikon made a cheaper, stripped down Z6 III that has their "Red" DNA in it; that's the real sell here, but the thing is, the best use of the camera seems to be as a B-camera for a production using Red cameras. It's barely featured externally, essentially a 'bare-bones' tool. But if you're not using Red (or Nikon) already, why?
Canon made something with a new sensor and is designed to be rigged up much more flexibly, and comes with an audio interface. The Nikon has no provision for such.
They're really very different tools and I'd be excited for either if I were in either of their (different!) niches....Show more →
RustyRus wrote:
It’s great if we all think Canon’s new C50 is worth the 3900 price point- I expected more of the this release and Canon won’t be getting my Money and I am seriously considering scrapping the brand unless I see some new ideas coming from Canon. It’s the same old crap-
That’s my opinion-
I mean, it's not for you (or me), but it's clearly for someone. And as with tools, they're usually worth more than you pay for them if they're the tool you need to get the job done.
Here's a video that goes into the differences and why the C50 and ZR are targeting different audiences:
I mean, it's not for you (or me), but it's clearly for someone. And as with tools, they're usually worth more than you pay for them if they're the tool you need to get the job done.
Yeah I wouldn’t go as far as calling it worthless or crap. Again, to me it’s more of a gap filler in the EOS C lineup than an evolutionary leap in Canon’s cinema tech.
Not the “killer” to make anyone dump their FX3’s and move to Canon, but for anyone already within the Canon ecosystem (or considering entering it for the first time) and looking to add a capable FX3-like video-centric camera that’s more portable than the C80, it looks like it’ll be a very solid option.
What makes the ZR more compelling is the price and some key features. But it also seems limited in other important aspects and I’m also a little skeptical about that sensor in the long term. A little more immediately exciting, yes. But it doesn’t strike me as a true workhorse option yet, while the C50 very well could.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Tascam will introduce an XLR/TRS adapter for the Nikon ZR in October so that problem goes away, though obviously Canon includes their adapter with the camera, partly explaining the higher price. Also it is noteworthy that the ZR has a 32-bit float audio input which is essentially free of gain adjustment as it has enough dynamic range to record any audio signal. This has become common in recent audio recorders but this is the first camera to include this feature as a built-in. In addition to TASCAM's audio interface, Smallrig has designed cages and related accessories for the ZR, and there will be a future provision to use V-mount batteries (by Nikon). ...Show more →
I'm still not sure about 32-bit float here. It's really meaningless if you don't also have a dual-stage ADC setup; it'd be like having 24-bit RAWs on current camera sensors or some other absurd oversampling that uses data to encode what becomes mostly noise.
For 32-bit float, the entire audio chain from the capsules to the preamps in the camera has to be designed to handle the signal.
As a reference, there are audio recorders that feature the dual-stage ADCs, and there are recorders that do not, that implement 32-bit float. For those that don't 32-bit float becomes a workflow thing, like "Red raw" on the ZR.
