Leaderboard

It turns out I am a bit wrong. ... That Micro Four Thirds was dead. Well near me, the G9 II came down to a much more sensible 1299 so I thought I'd give it a try. This thing... oh my gawd. Feel like putting the rest of my gear in the bin! This little box of joy is pure art in the handheld 4K/120p mode (and also in 5K open gate). The colour science, slow mo and IBIS are so, so good. The new GH7 sensor is quite something. Beautiful filmic quality to it. And I thought IBIS was good on the full frame Panasonic cameras or Olympus OM-1 but this is taking the biscuit now. You can just stand there and get a completely static frame especially in 120fps. I keep putting shutter at 1 second for long expose stills, pin sharp...The first camera that can really lay claim to being a tripod killer, in my view. Then there's the image processing... It totally defies the price. The new sensor just looks so clean in low light and dynamic range is fantastic. The real-time LUTs look stunning here. No other Micro Four Thirds camera has nearly as good colour processing (except the more expensive GH7), so in this sense I prefer it even to the Olympus OM-1 with the lovely Olympus skin tones. In some ways it is better than a flagship $4k full frame cam... I am not joking. Not missing a full frame sensor that much to be honest. It has the dynamic range, the low light, the resolution, and with a fast enough lens... the full frame look as well. The Metabones Speed Booster 0.64x fits without scraping the sensor-box. Also, the EVF is enormous and totally defies the price. Criticisms? Autofocus is very lens dependant - it's still a bit rubbish with the older stuff and adapters. Also no ProRes LT like the X-H2... With two SD card slots, it limits you only to 1080p in ProRes mode which is a bit silly... but the high-res stuff is available if you plug in an SSD via USB. GH7 has an advantage there for sure. But in plain old 10bit H.265 the image is superb. I think this body design suits the smaller lenses too... You know I'm not the greatest fan of the S5 II body design, well it is growing on me here... Micro Four Thirds and small stuff seems to go well with the G9 II / S5 II body design. It starts to make more sense. The sharp angles cut in less, camera as a whole is lighter, the grip is sufficient for everything and it's got that "GH2 feel" when you put the tiny 20mm F1.7 pancake on there whereas the S5 II with the larger lenses doesn't have that same charm to it. I am inclined to say Micro Four Thirds LOOK is back too... It's an antidote to predominance of a super shallow depth of field in commercial work and Netflix. It really makes me want to fully commit again to the system as it just does SO MUCH, far more than any full frame camera remotely affordable. It does more than a Sony a1 II FFS!

Welcome back! Can you tell me your name? Where are we? What year is it? Good, good... You've been in a DOF-induced coma for the last 7 years. We'll contact your families and let them know you've woken up - they'll be very happy to see you!

I saw this film in the cinema few days ago and I wanted to share a few short thoughts on this work, which I found extremely interesting for the balance between neorealist aesthetics and the use of natural light in complex urban environments like the markets of Taipei. The composition of the image and the dynamism of the camera manage to give a rare sense of immersion, keeping a consistent style for the whole film. It is a remarkable example of how cinematic language can work without huge technical equipment: in fact, the film was shot entirely with an iPhone. The choice of the iPhone 13 Pro Max was mainly due to the need to move with extreme agility and discretion inside the night markets of Taipei, contexts where a traditional crew with bulky cameras would have inevitably attracted attention and compromised the spontaneity of the scenes. By working with such a common and non-invasive tool, the director managed to adopt an almost documentary-like approach. Reading several articles and listening some interviews, the director gave several details: The film's aesthetics were built around the use of four iPhone 13 Pro Max cameras, integrated into a workflow that used the Beastgrip Pro system as the base for the rig. To achieve the characteristic anamorphic look and typical horizontal flares, the production used a prototype anamorphic lens from Beastgrip, paired with Black Forest diffusion filters to reduce the excessive digital sharpness of the sensor and give a more organic feel to the highlights of the night markets. On the software side, the shooting was managed entirely through the FiLMiC Pro app using the 4K Lux mode, a choice that allowed for a file with a wider dynamic range, which was later processed in post-production through advanced color correction in DaVinci Resolve. Seeing some BTS shots, this was really a run&gun configuration. An iPhone and a Gimbal et voila! https://thefilmstage.com/left-handed-girl-director-shih-ching-tsou-on-collaborating-with-sean-baker-and-seeing-the-world-through-a-childs-eyes/

I shoot in uncontrolled conditions, using only available light, and shoot what is happening with no directing and no do-overs. This means I'm frequently pointing the camera in the wrong direction, shooting people backlit against the sunset, or shooting urban stuff in midday-sun with deep shadows in the shade in the same frame as direct sun hitting pure-white objects. This was a regular headache on the GH5 with its 9.7/10.8 stops. The OG BMPCC with 11.2/12.5 stops was MUCH better but still not perfect, and while I haven't used my GH7 in every possible scenario, so far its 11.9/13.2 stops are more than enough. The only reason you need DR is if you want to heavily manipulate the shot in post by pulling the highlights down for some reason, or lifting the shadows up for some reason. Beyond the DR of the GH7 I can't think of many uses other than bragging rights. When the Alexa 35 came out and DPs were talking about its extended DR, it was only in very specific situations that it really mattered. Rec709 only has about 6 stops of DR, so unless you're mastering for HDR (and if you are, umm - why?) so adding more DR into the scene only gives you more headaches in post when you have to compress and throw away the majority of the DR in the image.

Truth bomb spat out right there and unique to you, to me, to others as our situations and needs are all different but unless you actually get out there and shoot shoot shoot, you’ll never truly know what works. And what does not. Probably always will be other than perhaps AI etc might/probably will fill in the blanks.

It would take more than a Ronin to stabilise that government at the moment.

This is the first smartphone video I've seen that didn't shout (or whisper) that it was shot on a smartphone. I do get flavours of it being shot on something small and mirrorless because of the movement of the camera (if it was a heavy rig it would have moved differently). I'm pretty stoked actually, and can't wait to get a vND solution for my iPhone 17 Pro. I suspect that I might end up shooting a lot of street stuff on it just because the form-factor is so small and people are far less curious/suspicious of smartphones than real cameras.

A GH7 (or G9 II if it has unlimited recording and doesn't overheat) really would be my ideal camera. Even though I use the excellent kit lenses a lot on my two S5 bodies and my S5II X, it's still not as light weight as I wish it were. I don't really care about shallow dof and low light isn't nearly as big of an issue when it comes to the GH7 and G9 II based on what I've seen or for what it was on my GH5 cams. But it's hard to justify going back to M43 because I just don't have faith that Lumix is invested in it for the long haul. Everyone i know loves these two cameras, but they don't get the firmware updates that the full frame cameras get. For Lumix that's a red flag because they've always released firmware that gave new features and improved their cameras. I mean, look how long they supported the GH5!

Yep. As I’ve shot more and more I’ve determined what is importantly to me: A comfortable, balanced, somewhat lightweight body but that is built well and has a good grip Great stabilization. I shoot heavily handheld and often will use warp stabilizer a lot. I’ve got a workflow down to get good results out of a lot of different cameras with varying IBIS strengths, but the G9II with its superb stabilization will make my life easier Decent lowlight. That includes having a somewhat noisy image as long as the grain looks good. Decent autofocus. Benefits my very run and gun content like weddings. Good internal image. My Nikon Z6 setup taught me I don’t love rigging out my kit. I have learned to work around any camera that is weak in one of these areas. I’ve figured out how to make very different equipment work for me and work around limitations. It’s just the G9II seems to really fit the bill with what is most important to me. That’s where I really feel camera decisions matter. Not in the IQ. But in the usability. How does it feel to use. Does it have those practical features that matter to you.

Good choice. I think that film-making is about compromises and the more you understand what you're trying to achieve then the more specific you can be with your equipment selection. The "I'll being everything just in case" shooter does so because they don't know what they want and therefore can't make any decisions. The more I shoot the more I understand what I want, how I work, what challenges I face, and what is available, and the clearer I get on what equipment I should use and why. It's sort of incredible that even with todays offerings of 8K video and 240p slow-motion and 14+ stops of DR and RAW and all the lenses available, even if you had infinite money, infinite strength to carry and operate heavy equipment, there are still serious compromises that have to be made. The does-everything camera is still a wild fantasy, even for gym bros in the billionaire class.

Good call. I have spent years and years going back and forth between primes and zooms and in the end came to what should have been a very obvious conclusion and that is I need both. Depending on the circumstances. In an ideal world, I could do it all with fast zooms but fast zooms (faster than f2.8) are a rarity and come with the penalty of size & weight. I was debating (yet again) at the end of my most recent season the case for continuing with just primes (needs +1 body) or going back to zooms (needs -1 body) but there are compromises to both scenarios. Instead, I decided to go with the -1 body, but keep the primes and though it means a couple of extra lenses in my bag, that (and having to do a lens swap every now and again) is my only compromise. I took a very hard look at the G9II and I think if my needs were different, I might have gone for it (over the OM-1) but in the end decided I wished to stick with full-frame stills but would go back to shooting S35 for video. Which is what I am doing.

Settled on getting a combo of the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 II and the Panasonic/DJI 15mm 1.7! I figured 12-35 2.8 would be enough for a lot, and for the few times I know I need more shallow DOF, that 15mm 1.7 would give me a 30mm equiv which is a SUPER versatile focal length, while having very decent DOF.

It's sad to hear this - the S9 seems to suffer with the same cost-cutting mechanisms of all smaller cameras. It's funny how consumer electronics mostly tend to charge a premium for smaller devices and yet when it comes to cameras the industry seems to regard small as being cheap and large as being professional.

I think it might actually be Cam Maquis, who later became a leading part of the French Resistance movement. In the middle row I think I can see Hugo Knows Foto with his undershirt on which his wife has embroidered “I Shoot Daguerreotype“

The battleships of The Golden Fleet will take down the evil DJI regime from wherever they come from. Greenland or somewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXt3V6OAEpo

3 reasons i suspect, 1) There's a dollar in it. 2) Pretty much every influencer has been selling these and other products and their souls as well. 3) Taking a slightly less cynical view, digital cameras being "digital" these lenses may take that edge off and they give you a different field of view as well as some unique character you may or may not like. But you know all of this already. Personally, i'm pretty happy with my sirui 24mm on mft mount. Its taken awhile to get used to it and i think i'm about 80% there. I do like the flares, i don't think their overdone. bokeh is kinda meh buts its not a 2x squeeze so to be expected, but i could insert an oval shape if it bothered me more and then there's trades off's as well. Mostly i just like the convenience i think. Attach lens to camera and shoot. A single-focus anamorphic front adapter sounds simple but would add complexity i think, something i'm not keen on at the moment. I could be wrong but wasn't 1.33 tailored towards mft ? and the bigger squeezes to s35 and full frame sensors? thats the impression i have about the different sensors sizes and squeeze ratios.

Thank you. I’ve found it’s very possible. I hear claims online and even in-person of people saying “you just can’t replace a gimbal.” I mostly disagree. If you have a great shooting technique down and are smart to maximize your camera’s best aids to help stabilize the shot, and you then are smart about your post-stabilization if needed, it’s absolutely possible. I was able to get a lot done with my less-than-ideal Nikon Z6 setup. IBIS on that camera is pretty lens dependent with F mount glass. It was never as good as the G9II or S9 with e stab high. But it was still possible. You have caught on fast to my preferred way to shoot and WHY I like to shoot that way. I’ve used gimbals before and have worked with others who use gimbals a lot. To me it just feels like a heavy nuisance that gets in my way. I feel I can get shots faster handheld. I can quickly get vastly different angles, movements, compositions, focal lengths etc handheld. I still think ultimately the gimbal gives ultimate smoothness, particularly at long focal lengths. It is easier to pull it off there. But, you can get handheld very close and gain a massive weight and agility advantage. Sometimes I watch a popular camera review YouTuber or shill-tuber. I take a minute to actually analyze the shots they are getting. Some are talented. Others, I look at the actual footage and I’m like, this is fine. I could get that easily. Sometimes I like the stuff I shoot more than the stuff they get from a camera. Sometimes I even feel I’ve gotten better shots with my 8 bit Z6 than some of their stuff on the latest Sony FX2 or whatever. This is not always the case, but it’s happened. Anymore I care about cameras to make my life easier and speed up my workflow while giving me a shooting experience that helps me be more creative. For me, the G9II certainly does that.

@FHDcrew Cool clips. Doing smooth moves that are meant to be like slider / crane work while walking and using a small setup with just camera/lens/filters and no big/heavy rig etc is definitely at the edge of stabilisation tech, and your results look pretty good. The way I think about your tradeoffs are: When you get the 12-35 2.8 you'll get Dual-IS where the IBIS links with the OIS and you get an additional level of stabilisation, so that will up your results by another notch or make it a lot less fiddly in post to get the same results you're getting now The 12-35 will definitely have a deeper DOF wide-open than the 18-35 setup wide open, but none of the shots in those videos really struck me as being too shallow for the 12-35. They might be, but while you might lose some DOF, you're gaining stabilisation, so you might be able to get the same amount of stabilisation from a longer focal length on the 12-35 than you did on the 18-35 which will push towards a shallower DOF because of the constant aperture, so there are lots of things that are competing with each other here and 'all-else-being-equal' comparisons are misleading. Another trade-off people don't seem to talk about is that having shallower DOF might make still images look a bit nicer, but if your deeper-DOF setup allows you to shoot faster then you'll shoot more shots in the same situation, which will mean that you have more shots to draw from in the edit and the best ones that get used in the edit will be better simply because there were more of them.. so it's your edit having shots with shallower-DOF vs your edit having shots with deeper-DOF but being better composed, including nicer moments from people, etc. Continuing on from the previous point, if you shoot more shots then not only will each individual shot in the edit potentially be nicer, you'll also have a lot more options in the edit. This is something that is a huge dynamic in what I do (shooting travel) because it means I can get a greater variety of shots which means I can pull things off in the edit that I couldn't otherwise do. This might be a bit non-obvious to some, but if you imagine you have to make a 1-minute edit with only 1-minute of footage, then you have almost no options whatsoever, and although there is diminishing returns the more footage you have, sometimes in the edit you'll want to use one moment but in order to do so you have to have another shot that fits a very specific purpose and if you don't have that then you can't use the good moment (or if you do it will be clunky). So in this sense a really dull or even badly-shot clip can make your edit better by letting you use a great shot or have a more interesting structure or line things up with the music better to have a nicer ebb-and-flow to the whole thing. Elaborating still, the more stable your shots are in-camera, the less time you'll spend tinkering with them in post and the more time you can devote to finding a better audio track, doing more sound design, doing a couple more versions and smoothing over the rough edges a bit more, or pulling off a colour grading look that needs a bit of time to work out. People think MFT = deep DOF = less cinematic, when in realistic terms it can also be MFT = better stabilisation = shoot faster = more shots and more variety of shots = less work in the edit = more options in the edit = a better edit overall. If camera-bro YT has taught us one thing it's that shallow DOF doesn't make an edit great. Some of the best edits I've ever seen were made of exclusively non-spectacular shots. It's a bit of a blind spot because less-skilled people online don't yet understand about how things in pre impact prod, or how things in pre and prod impact post, and the professionals who work on film sets where people work in departments often don't understand the downstream implications because they just follow the guidelines of their department without understanding them.

Looks so good. Love how far the iPhone as come. Outside of lowlight I could probably shoot all of my client work on the 17 pro if I needed to...it looks very good in talented hands. Deep DOF is a vibe anymore. All the elements we need are there. Good color, good codec, good DR...boom.

Definitely; that's where the 12-35 2.8 and DJi 15mm 1.7 will show their strengths for me. The lenses haven't arrived yet, but the camera came with the 12-60mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens, so definitely in the ball park with size and weight. The thing is so darn light; it actually feels extremely comfortable and balanced attached to the larger body style. I could be fine with a sigma 18-35; funny thing is even that feels somewhat light to me, as I am used to having to carry around my Atomos Ninja V for anything 10 bit. Yes, yes, yes. The only reason I have a great idea now of what matters to me, is because at this point I've shot a lot of projects, and have done so on multiple different camera systems. So along the way, I've learned what matters to me. I'm not going to notice a 1/2 stop DR difference; some grainy footage (as long as the grain isnt ugly) doesn't bother me terrible. Sometimes I like it. But I do value great stabilization, as the way I shoot I end up spending a good chunk of my time finessing post-stablization to achieve the type of camera movement I want while keeping things completely handheld. I have a solid handheld technique down, but on most cameras it is still not perfect. I always hold the camera losely, usually shoot wide, and do a great heel-toe walk or body sway. But I always need to post-stabilize. I end up trying the stabilization options in Davinci Resolve. If that doesn't work, I render that clip out to Prores and import it to After Effects just to apply Adobe Warp Stabilizer, as it is a bit better in my experience. Once I get the result I like, I export. The beauty of the G9II is that when you combine the fantastic IBIS with e-stabilization high, I get quite close to the result I get after all of that post stabilization process...but this is just the footage out of the camera. It saves me a lot of time. And I can even add a drop of warp stabilizer on top to make it perfectly smooth. Another big advantage for me, its effectively doing what Gyroflow does but all internally and paired with the best IBIS ever. I've tried Gyroflow. I've used it on some FX3 footage I shot for my buddy's wedding film company. I've also rigged an iPhone to my Nikon Z6 as well as used the Senseflow A1. Its a nice solution. I figured I'd love it; its the same concept of what normal post-stabilization does (which I always use ALL THE TIME). Big difference is it is using true camera motion data; so the results should be perfect right? Well yes, but you need to shoot on a high shutter speed. And I found that even on the Sony FX3, where Gyroflow can work with IBIS on, the crop was often still fairly large. And the workflow is lengthy. With the G9II, I have a minimal 1.255x crop with e-stab on high, and because its working fully in tandem with the phenominal physical IBIS system, its very stable AND I can zoom the lens mid-shot and it works fine (can't do this with gyroflow on most setups). AND I can keep my shutter at 1/50 because the physical IBIS system is doing 80% of the work here. But yeah. Moral of the story is shooting lots and lots of stuff has made me realize what matters most to me. The G9II seems to really hit that. Again, I used the Nikon Z6 for 4 years. I've also filmed weddings on a Sony FX3 with nice Sony G master glass. I filmed very extensively for one organization with a Canon R5 and EF glass. This past summer I bought a Canon R7, then a Panasonic S9, then sold both. So I've tried enough cameras and shot enough to know what works well for me. I'd fully agree that a lot of what camera youtuber's claim are the big time differences are not always as important as they seem; for me, the wonderful IBIS of the G9II and the minor crop in e-stabilization is way more useful than a full stop of DR improvement when you already had great DR in the first place. Etc etc. This is a concert I filmed and edited this summer on the Panasonic S9. I haven't had a chance to film anything substantial on my G9II...but this is close. It's a super weird setup I sort of wound up with over the summer...The Lumix S9 with the Sigma 18-35...in the Super 35 crop mode WITH E-stab on high. So basically a 2x crop MFT level at that point. But I still found the image to be very nice. More importantly, with some careful walking, I got the images to be this stable and a lot of these shots have NO post-stab applied. Colors were very rich. G9II is even better because again the crop is lessened in E-stab high and the physical IBIS is better. And build quality smokes the S9; that was something I did not appreciate about that camera. A short clip from a concert I filmed, with the aforementioned Lumix S9 setup. Again, no post-stabilization. It is just so smooth. Makes all the difference with how I like to film. More handheld with the Lumix S9 setup. This has a bit less "gimbal-push-in" shots and a bit more regular handheld shots. With e-stabilization high, it has a perfect balance struck, where you can walk and move the camera such that it looks like a steadicam, or you can just handhold it for regular stuff and it looks as stable as a cine-cam weighted down. This wedding trailer was with my old Nikon Z6 setup. Combo of Davinci post-stab and Warp Stabilizer. Outside, I cranked my shutter speed very high to help. I used RSMB to add motion blur in post. While this worked, I had to spend extra time stabilizing in post and tweaking things if it was not perfect. This is all but eliminated now with the G9II. Also, half of this video was shot on a Nikon F-mount 24-85mm 3.5-4.5, entirely at f/4.5. I reckon that looks pretty close to what the Panasonic12-35 2.8 will look like; @kyelet me know if I am wrong since you've used that very lens I think? But anyways, its enough DOF for me. That being said, if you like more, totally get it. Nothing wrong with that. End ramble haha.

Nice. In a sense, the fact that lots of modes on FF cameras have an APSC crop is a bit of a blessing in disguise. Not only to get a RAW file without insane resolution / bitrate, but it means that there are speed boosters for FF mounts. I think @Andrew - EOSHD has investigated speedboosting Medium Format lenses onto FF sensors, but my impression was that it's probably a difficult architecture to find combinations of equipment that won't vignette heavily or perform poorly at fast apertures. This is where the front anamorphic adapters can be useful, as I'd imagine there would be far more usable configurations from fitting a front anamorphic adapter to a FF camera + FF lens combo. The front adapters don't care about your camera mount / flange distances / lens mount / lens rear protrusion / etc, so in a way they're more like PL glass which you'd be able to keep and use regardless of what cameras you got in the future.

Seems similar to my priorities. Since getting the GH7 I haven't been jealous of FF except for my foray into 'night street cinema' where having crazy shallow DOF would be awesome, but it's not worth swapping over and thanks to adapters there are options for me. Yeah, everyone would be better off if they shot more. When you do it becomes obvious that our wants/needs are highly situational and you become more understanding when someone describes their wants/needs as being different to your own. Definitely agree with @MrSMW about just assessing the cameras on their current capabilities. TBH, the GH7 is more capable right now than most flagship cameras, when it comes to things that actually matter. There's a funny thing that happens when you write down what is important to you, then assess cameras against that. Things like 8K60 internal RAW somehow magically don't make the camera better at many/any of your actual criteria, but having 4K Prores HQ internally might. The list above from @FHDcrew is a good example of that. Then if you write down a list of everything you own that wouldn't work with the alternative camera, and think about selling it and then re-buying it again, you realise that getting a different camera with half-a-stop more DR isn't worth the thousands of dollars and weeks of work you'd lose selling and re-buying all your lenses, batteries and power management, cage and accessories, trips to the post office or courier, waiting for things to be shipped, assembling and troubleshooting everything when it arrives, learning new firmware and menus, doing a battery of tests to understand the sensor and colour science and codecs and how to treat it in post, then getting familiar with the rig to the point you can think about what you're pointing it at instead of what settings are assigned to which button etc. In terms of the G9ii / GH7 vs the S5 series, I wouldn't count on the MFT options being that much lighter, and it will probably come down to the lenses rather than bodies, which are pretty chunky.

Sorry, I meant S5II cage did not fit my S1RII. The S5 would definitely not either! Not sure where/how the Snake cages fit.

Right now I'm mostly using the Canon's .71x speedbooster on my R50V - but before that I was using it with my R5C for years as a great way to access the cam's 2-5K RAW features (which are only available in s35 mode) while basically making it FF. It's just one of the many reasons the R5C remains one of the most versatile releases in Canon history.

I don’t know but do know that my S5 Smallrig cage did not fit my S1RII due to slight differences in the bodies.

I get the appeal. Full frame makes that look easy. The medium format comparison is flattering, not literal. M43 can still do it, but only by design, not by accident.

Fair point. I think that’s where full frame really starts to show its edge.

Wide angle and shallow DOF isn't for M43. Recently, I got the Laowa 28mm f/1.2 for my S5ii/S9. The rendering looks and feel like medium format. If your subject is 4-7 feet away, you get a really interesting look that is impossible on M43, showing plenty of context, yet quite a bit of blur. That lens is my indoor lens. I absolutely love it.

So in the end, I went with an R6 III. 🤷‍♂️ How did I end up here, you may ask. I originally wanted R7 and R8, but had a hard time reconciling their limitations (R7 = slow readout, crazy 4K60 crop, AF issues, shutter issues; R8 = no IBIS, tiny battery). So I was still stuck without a "hero" camera. Something I could use for handheld video in most situations, and for photo on the same job if needed. I decided to get an R6 II, due to the holiday discounts that I hadn't anticipated earlier, to get past all limitations. Though now, I'd need to get a Ninja V+ to get the highest quality out of it ($500ish used), but I was OK with that. And then I got a deal I couldn't refuse on a new R6 III, which would end up costing the same as the R6 II/V+ combo, while exceeding even their limitations. Grabbed a 28-70/2.8 STM and Godox V480C while I was at it. Everything arrived at the very last second, and I was able to use the combo for the Xmas Eve job I had lined up that same night (nightclub photo/video). Photo AF was about on par with my A9 in extreme low light (good but not amazing). Got hung up on too many unintended faces, so I turned off subject detection. Video AF was definitely better than photo (no noticeable wandering/searching), probably because it moves slower. Lighting was super dark, so I was at ISO 25,600 4K24 video/6400 photo + flash, but the video quality held up thanks to the second base ISO being close. Added Canon's own CMT LUT and some Topaz NR, and the video was good to go! Vs my old OM-1, it's not even a contest. R6 III feels like a decade newer. Even the IBIS is MUCH smoother with more natural movement, despite everyone constantly blanket-praising m4/3 IBIS. It's hard to make it look bad if you move somewhat deliberately (slow walking through a crowd), while OM-1 would twitch at random, no matter how smooth you were, even with plain old panning. And OM-1 would randomly lose video focus in much brighter situations than that night, no matter how large the focus box was. R6 III stayed in place through some absolute hell situations (nightclub strobes), though photo AF completely choked at that point. Wondering if it was the 1/8 mist filter causing AF issues (no noticeable flaring), but it doesn't matter. I got all the shots I needed, the client was happy with the output, and the R6 III roughly worked as expected.

Well for me it is taking me out of the film right away. I feel there is something off in each shot. ( color, dof, detail, dynamic range, bad lighting,...) So for each their own I guess, but this is not for me. As I am constantly wondering why each shot looks off and that is keeping me off the story.. (not sure if people with no film experience can spot it, I think they can). But just my 2 cents. The only film I ever saw that kinda worked that way was "the blair witch project" but they tell you in the first minute. This is the footage of some students that went missing in the woods" so I could give it an place.

I'm dumbfounded by the fact that the GM5 commands the same price as the S9 at roughly 840 euros on MPB. When will Panasonic take notice?

It is absolutely in a different league.

I know I can finally breathe haha. I’ve learned full frame is NOT the savior of the world. Shocking really!

I work on a daily live national pop culture program - and while we are theoretically a terrestrial radio program first and foremost, realistically speaking we are a multi-platform program that is consumed as a traditional radio show, a podcast on Apple, a video podcast on Spotify/Youtube, and there are a lot of people who ONLY know our program via the video reels we post on our IG account. The program is captured with 3 Sony PTZs, and guests joining us via Zoom are patched into the convo by our digital producer who is also our live switcher, who is also framing each person (up to four guests, including the host) for our Youtube/Spotify podcasts AND our IG reels... so yes, Open Gate would prob be a helpful option for our digital producer/switcher/editor to have in post.

Yes. I haven't tried the G9ii, but I bet the build is in a different league; yet, the pricing of the S9 would indicate otherwise when it first came out. Not having that EVF meant to me they were not going to cheap-out elsewhere, but they gave us GX800-level buttons. I got the SmallRig cage and it does feel much better to hold and it has all those rigging options now. Still, it does have a lot going for it in terms of output. Personally, I thought it would be a major problem not going above 1/100 in artificial lighting, but it doesn't seem so.

I just freaking bought this thing. I so agree with you. The camera is unbelievable for the price. I genuinely will never need anything more than what this camera has. Lowlight was quite impressive. And I'm coming from having shot on the OG Nikon Z6 for nearly 4 years; that camera was very good in low light. Like "lets shoot a wedding reception at 25,600 ISO" level good. And on this G9 II...you can actually use it at 12,800 if you are fine with some somewhat pleasing grain, or just denoise the image in Davinci. Cleans up easy. Colors are VERY thick. Dynamic range is great. IBIS is the best I've ever used. E-stabilization high is amazing and crops less than 1.3x according to my tests. Planning on getting the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 OG and the 25mm 1.7 and pairing those two together for a nice compact kit. I think its the most underrated camera of 2025. A real steal. Also I consider this camera to be a real tempting alternative to an FX30.

I second that. They seem to wear out fast too. This summer when I briefly owned the S9, the rear dial just felt mushy and very easy to turn. I recently tried a Lumix S9 at a bestbuy that seemed to be in good condition; the rear dial felt better. And on a Lumix S9 FB group I've heard reports of the dials going bad and becoming less responsive. A major reason I went Panasonic G9II instead of S9 this time around. I also never really loved the Smallrig grip for the Panasonic S9; the grip felt lose half the time even when tightening. With all this being said, the S9 is still quite the value for the money. I think it smokes the Sony ZVE10II for example.

I love it’s size, it’s weight and it’s capability but as a pro tool, it is sorely lacking. I have used it as my primary video unit on a couple of occasions and the result has been great…mostly, - too many times I have jogged those dials etc though 😏 I would like to see a second gen, but for now/2026, I have relegated mine to back up/spare apart from one single use case (locked on to grooms face for bridal entrance…which seems a bit overkill to have a camera dedicated to and then packed away but 🤷‍♂️) and so it stays. For now.

Hezekiah Northrup is somewhere in the background too. He's just hard to make out because the photo was taken just a few weeks after he invented Bokeh.

Needs to be lockable on the next gen camera…if there is one. Plus more robust everything!

It’s a pity about the multiple convictions for inciting racial hatred.

Now that you mention it, every time I log in to this place, somewhere in the background, I can hear ‘Midnight, The Stars And You’…

My first thought was "I bet Rosco or Lee have something like that, but maybe not in the right size" and after a few minutes of searching, I found something from Rosco that's like that, but not in the right size. https://www.adorama.com/ro1081102024.html So there's hope, maybe that or searching for "graduated center filter gel" or similar would get you closer! Another thought would be to make something like the soft focus disc for an some types of large format soft focus lens - some examples here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?49632-Recommendation-for-Soft-Focus-lenses-for-4x5/page2 It wouldn't be exactly the same as varying the opacity of the film like in a gradient, but you could make an aperture that has a hard edge in the center with the edges around it perforated, but with the density of perforation decreasing toward the edges. It'd almost certainly introduce some interesting aberrations.

Hm, it seems to me rather like Jean-René douze-fps but I could be wrong!

The bottom right dude, is that the notoriously dageurreotype-shy, Louis 'Rolling' Shutter?

Is this why they alegedly rebranded the Osmo Pocket 3

The iPhone 17 Pro selfie camera has a square sensor, and when using the default camera app there's a button that swaps between it recording a 9:16 video and a 16:9 video. I don't know if you'd rate it as a "real" camera or not though!

Looks like we have a new pocket camera coming.

None of those images show the full dynamic range. It's a low light test more than dynamic range.