Leaderboard

Cropping in post. That’s what I see and like about 8k. 8k for the sake of 8k though, not interested. Same for me with stills and high megapixel cameras. Some say they don’t need 50-100mp and I don’t either, not for the sake of having more, but I do like it because it allows me more reach from smaller or less lenses. I can carry a single 28-105 and ditch the 24-70 + 70-200 combo.

It's a reminder that we're very lucky and have also probably hit a wall when it comes to image processing when a 2015 camera still looks so good 10 years later.

People might laugh at me, but I don't care. I've been doing some walk-around filming with my G7 and 9mm Leica versus my S5ii and the kit lens. I'm absolutely dumbfounded how little the differences are. Here are my settings: Panasonic Lumix G7 - 4k 25fps (EOSHD ProColor Settings, with minor tweaks), super-fast stabilization in Final Cut (InertiaCam- smoothing (.1), continuous video AF on with it's small box in the center (yes, that's right and it didn't really hunt), A Mode, Auto ISO, handheld only, AWB Panasonic Lumix S5II - 4k 25fps (Stadard profile), no stabilization in post (but had IBIS on), continuous AF (mode 2), small box in the center, A Mode, Auto ISO, handheld only, AWB I kid you not, the images were very similar, minus the color which seemed better on the G7 to my eye. After stabilization, there was little difference. Here are some stills: It would appear the 2015 G7 is still the little engine that could. It weighs a whopping 540g less than the S5II and kit lens. I could add the 14-140, the 25 f/1.4 and perhaps a recorder or mini tripod for that difference. This is where M43 needs to go in the future: small, excellent value, with great features like 4k, PDAF, IBIS, 10 bit h.265, with a proper shutter and hot shoe. Even the previous generation(s) from 2015-2018 have so much to offer.

And do, but mostly because I think the footage just looks better than the 4k. My A7RV will shoot 8k but never even tried video on it. Or my Nikon, even though the 4k out of the Zf is supposed to be pretty good.

I skipped over the G7 and went from G5 to G6 to G80, but I shot some of my favourite footage with the G6 in Standard profile at 1080p50 (28Mbps AVC) - the highest quality it could shoot. There was definitely something about the image that those older 16MP sensor cameras had, which seemed to have got lost in the G80 (despite it having nominally the same 16MP sensor). But eventually I decided I could live with the size and weight of a G9 and entered a whole better world of image quality and stabilisation performance... Comparing the G9 and my recently acquired S9 - I think 4k50p on the G9 is much less prone to aliasing/moire and the sharpening isn't overdone, but the stabilisation is better on the S9 (as is the dynamic range handling in difficult conditions). Otherwise, which one I might choose to take out would depend far more on lens choices and overall kit size/weight for what I was intending to do - either can produce excellent video (my abilities are more the limiting factor!). (Straying away from Panasonic, if I was forced to choose just one camera to keep and use out of my current collection, it might be the OM-1, but only because it has a blend of abilities that fit my preferences and needs combined with 'good enough' video quality).

The limitations are definitely there. We've seen so many overhyped minor improvements—most of which can be overcome with solid technique. Take 10-bit vs. 8-bit, for example. I’ve seen endless comparisons on the topic, but none of them really sell me on the concept. Sure, I’ll shoot in 10-bit if it's available—why not—but do I actually need it? Did I really need to upgrade just for that? Then there’s 32-bit audio. Again, I might use it—but mostly out of laziness. It’s not something I need. IBIS is trickier. It seems practical, especially since most alternatives involve adding weight. But these days, nearly every YouTube video uses a camera with IBIS, and honestly, the look is getting stale. It still beats shaky footage, sure, but it’s become the norm when it should be more of a “just in case” feature. Continuous AF in video? Cameras now focus faster than I ever could at f/1.2—but then again, why are we even shooting video at f/1.2? With all the AI, it feels like cameras are making more and more decisions for us—too many, in my opinion. You look at the screen and it’s all over the place: body, face, eye, face again, back to body, airplane, cockpit, no—face again, someone else's body, then the eye. Is this really what we want? And what about viewing limitations? The human eye maxes out around 300 dpi—when you’re young. I still don’t see the point of 8K. Plus, where are we actually watching this content? I’d guess 90% of the time it’s on a screen smaller than 20 cm. Who’s noticing the detail on that? As for audio, there has been progress—people are using earbuds more, and they sound far better than the tiny speakers we used to rely on. Maybe when you put it all together, it is an improvement. But here we are in 2025—ten years after the G7 launched—and I’ve learned how to work around most of its limitations. Sometimes, knowing the basics still takes you further than all the latest tech. I guess I shouldn't spend so much on camera gear- let the noobs and pros do that.

Top of the line gear has always been prohibitively expensive. I remember not being able to afford a 5D II back when I began with a T2I. Eventually I scraped together enough for a 6D, and I still envied people who had the 5D III - even though it was just an incremental upgrade. This feeling has never gone away. Every single modern flagship has been far too expensive for most users at launch, with the exceptions of busy working professionals and rich, rich hobbyists seeking status symbols. I think if you really need the absolute latest feature set, theoretically you should be making enough money with your gear to justify the expense. These are high end tools being built for a very limited market and the price hikes between generations can be covered by a few days of fees from a working camera operator in most cases. In my experience, I've never been making the kind of money that lets me buy new flagship cameras - so I make do with older, used gear, and it does 90% of the same job as the newer iteration. Yet while budget offerings seem to be drying up (I think the Z5ii is getting a lot of praise for being a compelling outlier here), there's no shortage of dirt cheap used cameras that will vastly outperform anything I could have imagined owning a decade ago. For filmmakers or photographers starting out, the options are vast and better than ever. For professionals sitting on tens of thousands of dollars in lenses and camera bodies, it seems a little rich to complain that camera X mark VI is launching for 500 bucks more than its previous version. C'mon. What percentage of users actually need camera X mark VI when the last five iterations are great? Who is the hobbyist that needs a nominal reduction in rolling shutter performance or a 70fps burst rate for photos? Who is the hobbyist who needs to shoot noise-free video at 12,800 ISO and beyond? Who is the hobbyist that needs 8 stops of IBIS instead of 6, etc, etc. Owning the latest-and-greatest camera will always been about status - especially as phones have eroded demand. I would agree that from a features perspective the Fuji X Half seems very expensive, especially as it has little to no professional application. But then again, I see a lot of people with X100 series cameras and Leica rangefinders who don't seem too pressed by what they paid to wear them around their necks. Fuji knows exactly who their new camera is for - and spoiler, its rich people with money to burn. (TLDR - Cameras are for rich people.)

Yes. Even in mixed lighting, it looks great. It was cloudy outside and I had 3000K lights going at the same time I filmed this today. The first time I did it, I left the G7 on sunny WB- it still looked great, but then it was too far of match with the S5II. I'll try to post the actual video tomorrow.