Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (22,608 visits to this link)
17,218 topics in this forum
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.5m views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 422.6k views
-
- 0 replies
- 758 views
-
- 700 replies
- 284.1k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.7m views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 706.5k views
-
- 5 replies
- 139 views
-
- 11 replies
- 198 views
-
- 52 replies
- 4.5k views
-
- 548 replies
- 247.3k views
-
- 22 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 87 replies
- 63k views
-
- 1 reply
- 204 views
-
- 7 replies
- 456 views
-
- 24 replies
- 876 views
-
- 2 replies
- 257 views
-
- 10 replies
- 6.2k views
-
- 9 replies
- 638 views
-
- 1 reply
- 309 views
-
- 5 replies
- 6.3k views
-
- 55 replies
- 26.8k views
-
- 34 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 75 replies
- 50.4k views
-
- 3 replies
- 432 views
-
- 336 replies
- 121.4k views
-
- 3 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 13 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 7 replies
- 10.6k views
-
- 0 replies
- 412 views
-
- 26 replies
- 10.9k views
-
- 465 replies
- 118.4k views
-
- 104 replies
- 54.4k views
-
- 16 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 92 replies
- 71.9k views
-
- 21 replies
- 3.1k views
-
- 140 replies
- 40k views
-
- 7 replies
- 996 views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 116 replies
- 55.6k views
-
- 26 replies
- 2.9k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.2k
-
Total Posts350.9k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
I think you've been looking at the camera industry too long. We operate in a marketplace where people offer goods and services and if people want to purchase them they do, and if not, they don't. There are reasons why Governments might incentivise or subsidise various industries or products or behaviours, but I don't think any of these apply to cameras. The only other situation that is an exception is if something starts to become a necessity, like clean water or reliable electricity supply, and more recently now internet access is getting into this territory. When this happens then efforts might need to be made to ensure that these things are accessible. I very much doubt anyone is arguing that high-end mirrorless cameras are a human right, in which case they should just be traded like all goods, where they're subject to the laws of demand and supply. You can't get your house painted for $50 because paint and labour costs more than that. You can't buy a car for $9 because no-one has worked out how to make them for anything remotely like that price. You can't buy a super-car for $10000 because the market has valued them significantly above that. -
Two thoughts from me. If you close your eyes and imagine each scenario, how do each of them make you feel? What is never really talked about is that if you feel like you're having to argue or strong-arm your equipment then you'll be in a bad mood, which isn't conducive to a happy set, getting good creative outputs, or just enjoying your life. I think people dismiss this, but if you're directing the talent then this can really matter - people can tell if you're in a good mood or distracted or frustrated etc and people tend to take things personally so your frustrations with the rig can just as easily be interpreted by others that you're not happy with their efforts. The odd little image technical niggle here or there won't make nearly as much difference as enjoying what you do vs not. When it comes to IBIS vs Giroflow vs EIS etc, it's worth questioning if more stabilisation is better. For the "very dynamic handheld shots" having a bit more camera motion might even be a good thing if it is the right kind of motion. Big budget productions have chosen to run with shoulder-mounted large camera rigs and the camera shake was pleasing and added to the energy of the scene. Small amounts of camera shake can be aesthetically awful if they're the artefacts from inadequate OIS + IBIS + EIS stabilisation, whereas much more significant amounts of camera shake can be aesthetically benign if coming from a heavier rig without IBIS or OIS. If more stabilisation is better, maybe it would be better overall to have a physical solution that can be used for those shots? Even if there aren't good options for those things, maybe the results would be better if those shots were just avoided somehow? In todays age of social media and shorts etc, having large camera moves that are completely stable is basically a special effect, and maybe there are other special effects that can be done in post that are just as effective but are much easier to shoot?
-
Good to hear you got a solution that works for your (very challenging) shooting requirements - that's what truly matters! Low-light is now the current limitation for the high-end MFT line-up. The GH7 sacrifices having a dual-base-ISO in favour of having the dual-readouts and the DR boost that architecture gives. I shoot uncontrolled external locations in available light, which means low-light performance is a consideration for me too, but the GH7s performance is enough for my needs. I suspect the low-light capabilities of MFT would be described as "Very Good to Excellent", but the latest FF cameras now have low-light capabilities that would be described as "Absolutely Incredible" and so MFT lags by comparison. You can't cheat the laws of physics! It wasn't that long ago that cameras weren't really usable above ISO 1600 or 3200, so things have advanced very quickly. Suggesting that you "need" to shooting weddings at ISO 25,600 would have been considered a joke and saying you were serious would have started arguments and gotten you banned as a troll! Personally I think the "if todays cameras can't do it then you don't need it" is a silly perspective, because it implies that there aren't any new situations or circumstances that are worth recording, and obviously that's just plain ridiculous. I wonder how the GH7 compares to the original A7S. The difference might be smaller than you'd think.
-
I think I may not have explained myself clearly, so I want to reset what I was actually getting at. This isn’t about whether people need new cameras, or whether older cameras are still capable. I agree they are. It’s also not about blaming any one company or getting political. What I’m really reacting to is the disconnect in tone. Right now, a lot of people are dealing with very real financial pressure in day to day life. Food, housing, healthcare, basic stability. Against that backdrop, the pace and intensity of constant product releases and marketing across the camera industry (and other industries) feels a bit detached from how many people are actually living. I’m not saying companies should stop innovating, and I’m not saying people are wrong for buying new gear if they can afford it. I’m just questioning whether the relentless “next thing, next thing, next thing” approach still matches the moment we’re in. Even for those of us who aren’t buying, it can create a kind of fatigue just being surrounded by it, especially when most modern cameras are already more than capable for professional work. So the question I was trying to raise is less “should anyone upgrade?” and more “does this constant push still make sense culturally and economically right now?” That’s all I was aiming to explore. -
Good convo so far, I shoot on Lumix FF, Fuji XH2S and stills on Canon. Have had a lot of Sony's in the past (actually think the FX30 is a fantastic overlooks body if you don't need super High ISO) Bought a ZR on a whim, - to my taste- the H265 is unusable, and the RED code files are massive. There are way too many quality of life issues (like extracting the CFB card once there is a cage on the body) that really ruin it for me! For what you have listed I think the C50 is great or look for a used FX3, still a solid camera today.
-
