He has a point, only Canon could probably do it that cheap.
Well now he is talking about a Canon 500 Dollar FF camera. Makes some good points but man that seems like a real long shot from Canon or any other company.
Sounds like they're in full on troll / click bait / Canon shrill mode.
"They have already build a 500$ mirrorless full frame camera. And then they overpriced it to 1300$, because that's what they do."
Aren t you the guy who sells expensive luts (everybody can make on their own within 5 minutes) to amateurs? or the guy who stole everything from Magiclantern, packed it into a "raw shooters guide" and sold it expensive?
I'm not sure when this trend started, but companies are not plural. It is "Panasonic has", not "Panasonic have". It makes me cringe observing the increasing number of people latching on to this mistake. Companies are a grammatical singular entity even though they refer semantically to an aggregation. (Semantics refer to the meaning of a thing).
That aside, Tony's article bugged me too but after watching it several times, I realized he prefaced his negative comments with explanations of why he reached the opinion he did, and he was very careful to qualify all of his negative comments. Still, it bugged me that he posted a "commissioned" link to profit from any S1/S1R purchases - even though he says the camera is not yet a wise consumer purchase.
The man seems to be on something of a mission at the moment to sow the seeds of the destruction of his YouTube channel and therefore business. (Afghan Girl saga). Muppetry.
Google it! It's all over YouTube etc.
I'm not particularly interested in slating the guy, but he brings so much on his own head.