Leaderboard

@Tulpa If you are buying from scratch and don't have a lot of lenses etc in a particular format that you want/need to use then I'd be looking at this camera too. It is smaller and lighter than even the very compact GX-80/85. Compared to the bigger MFT offerings in the G and GH series then it is even more of a stark difference in form factor but it is also dramatically cheaper. Video specs, it shoots 4:2:2 10-Bit and has the open gate mode which for this sort of expedition might well be beneficial to you as you can more easily reformat the footage in different aspect ratios for social media etc. It has the colour profiles for ease of use but it also shoots in both flavours of F-Log so you can roll your own look. Lens wise, it has not only got a huge back catalogue of native lenses (a lot of which have stabilisation) and are plentiful on the used market but it also has a lot of fast compact 3rd party lenses like Viltrox which are available at the sort of prices we all remember MFT lenses being back in the day ! Obviously, it has the larger sensor too.... The "downsides" would be considered to be the lack of IBIS and having what appears to be a vague degree of weather resistance - I couldn't find any definitive answers on that one. The lack of IBIS may well actually prove to be a blessing in disguise if the camera is going to spend any amount of time on the handlebars while you traverse over what for large chunks of the journey will be less than smooth surfaces. Wear and tear over three years will be bad enough without throwing the fragile mechanisms into the mix. There is a reason why shows such as Top Gear went with the IBIS-less GH5s (although I'm not sure if the story of show wanting to use the GH5 minus it was actually the trigger for Panasonic to make that version is apocryphal or not). Whatever way you go, I'd spend some research time on the best shock mounting options as it will be a point of failure for any camera that you go with over that period of time. As for the weather sealing... Back in the dark distant past when I was a professional sports photographer using battleships like the D3/D4/D5 etc they could take a hammering but as soon as the rain/sleet/snow became a bit too much none of us were taking that chance that they were immune to it so out would come the covers for both the bodies and the lenses. Think Tank make good ones but they are all designed for bigger cameras rather than the X-M5 so on a more prosaic level, these are cheap and cheerful at less than £11 for a pack of four and won't take up much space. On a trip like this when you are likely going to encounter very real weather, I wouldn't take any chances with the weather sealing rating vague or otherwise of smaller cameras.

OK, decision made, flipping the S9 and an S5ii plus a lens, for a second S1RII, - it's worth it to me. 4 bodies down to 3 from what was 5 at the start of the year. 9 lenses down to 6, down to 5. I'm hoping to get that down to 3 at some point in the near future... 3 camera brands down to 1 (already happened)...but need more batteries because this S1RII is a power hog. I'm one of those that normally scoffs at folks reporting crap battery life and can normally exceed the official numbers by a factor of around 3, but with the S1RII, only by about 1.5. I now have 12 batteries and have 2 on charge at all times and as soon as Llano have the Lumix battery charger with built in power bank available, will have one of those in my bag. But the power issue aside, I think it's a bit of a no-brainer to me and really it comes down to one single factor more than anything, - e:shutter, - I hate it (for stills) and am going back to mech shutter only. The Sigma 28-45mm f1.8 is great by the way. Not quite as big or heavy as I expected, or at least no larger or heavier than expected, fast, very well built and no frikkin' extending zoom!! I'm just hoping they make a longer focal length version and then I really would be set for the remainder of my career.

Just pointing out that "weather sealing" is useful for more than just filming in the rain. It's also protection against dust (which is a very common problem in arid areas). It's protection against something in your bag breaking open and leaking on the camera. Or your tent leaks in the rain at night and you had your camera sitting out. Or you just drop it in a puddle/fountain/shallow water for a second. And yes, it is good to understand how weatherproof something really is, but simply having gaskets around a lot of the buttons and on the lens mount is a big deal. And sealing on a zoom lens can be even more important in a dusty area so that zooming the lens doesn't suck in a ton of dust.

I wouldn’t and I think it’s a great bit of kit. But no weather sealing to speak of and it’s build I’d say is OK, but it’s not built like an OM-1. Or even close, that thing is built like a tank. Despite being a full-frame guy for photo and video, bike packing around the world, M4/3 for sure. I can’t see past Olympus/OM Systems for this kind of thing.

I can, especially as a one man band photographer filmmaker/videographer who always works solo. I currently use 2x photo dedicated cameras, 2x video, 1x monopod, 2x tripods, 2x lightstands, 2x lights, up to 6 pieces of audio gear, 1x drone, multiple camera angles at the same time, photo and video at the same time... There are parts of every job where I use every single one of the above at the same time except 2x photo cameras. I can have 3 video units rolling, with an audio feed to each, shooting stills with the drone up shooting video straight down statically. OK, with the drone, it's a frikkin nightmare doing that and last time out I crashed it into a tree landing it 200 metres away...but it can be done. And that's with single attempt no second chance scenarios. Now carry all that on a bike plus all the other gear? Obviously not, but a single robust dedicated camera and either 1 or 2 max lenses, carbon travel tripod, super-lightweight collapsible lightstand and small LED plus audio gear takes up near zero space and battery life is excellent. Tiny compliant drone. Yes, I can see one person handling this just fine, especially if you are taking your time. I think all of us to a degree can overthink these things and volume of kit creeps up. I'm on a reduction mission myself right now in this regard having allowed my own volume of gear to creep up. I had a kit rationale recently and asked myself, "do you really need 6 lights and when have you ever used 6?" Err, never. Do I really need that 3rd camera angle for video or is it just overkill and one more thing that actually risks screwing the entire scenario up because you are now juggling too many pieces of kit that all need to be focused, or not focused and rely on AF and is the transmitter for the audio switched on and is the receiver also and... Sometimes, often even, less can end up being more.

Olympus/OM System OM-1 + 12-35mm f2.8

@Tulpa Maybe John is best placed to talk about camera bodies, but here's a few thoughts: you absolutely want weather proofing, and should read the manual to see what this can cope with (and what it cannot) IBIS is great but the mechanisms are fragile and I'd imagine that if there are any constant vibrations from cycling you could easily break them (e.g. will there be hours and hours of off-road or riding on rough roads?) consider what you'll be doing for audio - if you want an audio input then you'll need the G or GH line of cameras, not the GX line which lacks audio inputs docos are about getting the shot, not having a setup that looks incredible but isn't flexible or fast enough to use in the field. for this I recommend simple setups and zoom lenses. if you go MFT the 12-35mm F2.8 is a great lens because it's got some flexibility and also enough low-light for most situations. You need to think about the whole ecosystem involved. You will have the camera, lenses, filters, batteries and chargers, media, potentially separate microphones (and therefore all their battery and charging needs), etc. You might want a cage and maybe external monitors. You'll need camera mounts, definitely for mounting things to the bikes, but also a tripod is probably a must-have too. If you're shooting interviews you might want some small lights, which come with their own battery and charging requirements too. Then there's media management. How will you offload cards, and where will you store the data? Will you be able to backup to the cloud as you go? Can you buy drives along the way and mail them home as you go? Having three copies of something is great but if they're all in your bag when it gets stolen then the footage is still lost. This ecosystem is something you need to assemble and then use a few times to work out the kinks and get everything optimised. The reason I say all that is that by the end of that process you might decide that you don't have space or the weight capacity for the camera after you pack a wireless mic and a laptop and some hard drives.

100% agree about the size, and when compared to the GH5 the difference in the hand is a lot more than what it looks like in pictures, so it's sort-of deceptively chunky. By the time you're looking at a GH7 "small camera" territory is so far off you can't even see it in the rear-view mirror! Perhaps the compromise is that the GH7 has an integrated cooling fan whereas neither the R5 nor Z6 III have it, and will be a larger again by the time you add on additional accessories etc.

I can vouch for the GH7 as a workhorse. In terms of low light, I'd say it's fine. Here are a couple of stills from the GH7 with the Voigt 17.5mm F0.95 lens. I can't remember if the lens was fully wide-open or not, but I think the GH7 was at ISO 1600? These have a film grain applied, so the grain is deliberate. GH7 ISO tests are available online if you want to see the grain at various settings. Also remember that NR exists in post, and compression does a pretty good job of NR as well. The first shot is lit from the candle and the light of the fridge: and this is just the candle: Here's are some shots from the OG BMMCC from 2014 at its base ISO of 800, the 12-35mm F2.8 lens and shot at a 360 shutter to cheat an extra stop. These locations looked about this bright with the naked eye, and I have excellent night vision. You actually need far less low-light performance than most people think. Thanks! The issue is that you're either showing a very wide FOV, which will have significant distortions, or you're cropped in to the point where the quality is low because you're cropping out most of the data. IIRC, If you have a 100Mbps 360 image then by the time you crop to the FOV of a 24mm lens you're down to something like only a few Mbps. This is why I said the bitrates are what matters most.

I agree. The ability to reframe in post is incredible. It even goes beyond that because you are essentially recording every camera angle at all times, so if there was something that happened around you, you could cut between multiple angles of the same event. Even if you were psychic and were always pointing your normal camera in the best direction at all times, you couldn't record multiple angles at the same time with one camera, so it goes even beyond the mythical psychic camera person. I saw a great example of this many years ago.. it was a guy recording his family walking through a fairground with mum and the kids walking behind him. The sequence was something like: his kids calmly looking around someone in a scary costume approaching from ahead his kids not seeing them scary monster seeing the kids and having the idea to scare them and starting to approach mum seeing him and smiling, knowing what is about to happen the kids suddenly seeing him and reacting very suddenly / loudly the monster reacting to their reaction the kids laughing the monster laughing mum laughing monster walking away It was essentially a three-camera shoot, and like all good reality TV I'm pretty sure he overlapped the shots to extend the event, which probably only took about 5 seconds. The killer thing is that just by having a 360 camera you're recording all the camera angles all the time, so when the thing happens you've probably got all/most of the angles to show it happening. Just get the one with the highest resolution and highest bitrates. When you crop in you're drastically reducing the quality of the footage.

I also doubt that "weather resistant" is sufficient for the random deluges that are likely to happen over that duration of trip, although it's absolutely worth reading the manufacturers description of what "weather resistant" means, just so you know what they are thinking of when they use the phrase. It might be a lot more (or less) than what you might be thinking. This is something I have pondered for some time but haven't gotten around to. Better to just get something completely waterproof and be done with it. Then you can record in monsoon rains and get good footage of waist-deep water, which would be a highlight of the doco in itself. I would also suggest that the "bad weather low-light" situation isn't really that important. Realistically, if it's bad weather due to rain or due to dust at night then you can't see that much anyway. Just turn on your bike lights or headlamps and film the chaos. My setup doesn't cover the "long-zoom low-light" combination because it's not a thing that you need to shoot normally, and while it would be great to have, I have only ever wanted this combination for taking shots out of the hotel window at night in Seoul, and that's hardly a situation to design my whole setup around. I'm also surprised at how compact the 28-200mm lens is on the S9, it seems quite manageable.

I'm going to revise my choice for this type of use. Camping and biking mean to me that one camera might not suffice if going Panasonic. I do not think that the OM-3 will give acceptable levels of noise inside a tent at night unless with a small light; nor do I believe the S9 by itself will give acceptable levels of weather resistance (by the way, I doubt the Panasonic 14-140 does either even though it's rated weather resistant). Therefore, I would still go for the S9 with a 18mm f/1.8 lens for dark, inside a tent scenes and the 28-200. For bad weather, I'd get an action cam. This will eliminate bad-weather low light; maybe pick up a camera cover for the S9. At MPB, that setup will set you back 2500 euros. The other option is the "do everything" set-up with the OM-3 with the Olympus 14-150 ii and the Panasonic 9mm for about the same amount of money, but you'll be spending more on the camera (double!) for less quality output (but still great). If you are a disciplined shooter that usually uses a tripod and manual focus, there are options that will cost way less. That OM-3 setup is about 950g and the S9 + action cam setup is 1300g. Note: Camera size doesn't have the Panasonic 18mm list, but it's the same size as the 24mm. Again, this is for 10-bit with great IBIS and AF being the priority. I'd go with a much cheaper setup if it were me. I wouldn't want to take that expensive of gear out into the unknown. It's a close call though. There are so many good choices. It almost makes you say "screw it" and just use whatever you have with its limitations. If you're a creative, this is usually better.

The S9 isn't weather sealed, though, is it? It's not the only consideration, but I'd definitely consider that a "would be nice" for a multi-year bike tour which will probably include a lot of camping.

Here's one of the issues with M43: Granted, the OM-3 is quite possibly a more functional setup with a better build, but the S9 could be all you need and will beat the OM-3 in price, low-light, and video output. Personally, I'd rather go with the S9 even though I've bad-mouthed it quite a bit.

An OM-3 with a 14-140mm and a small M43 prime barely takes up any space. An action camera barely takes up any space. A phone is probably coming anyway. That's a primary camera and two backup cameras. For lights, if they're needed at all for the style of documentary being done, a small pop-up reflector weighs almost nothing and can do a lot. Combine that with one or two Aputure MC's and maybe an ultra-portable light stand and you've got a workable lighting setup. Don't want the reflector? Include a white t-shirt or hoodie in the package and use it as a bounce. It'll look ridiculous on set, but I've made it work with worse. The MC's are also nice because they have a magnet built-in so with some creativity, you can find a place to put them without necessarily needing a light stand (if it were me, I'd bring at least one small one, though. For mics, a DJI mic 2 kit and one of the tiny Deity or R0de on-camera shotguns? The Mic will pair with an Action 4 and can also record internally. Total weight of that entire kit? <2kg Not bad for a setup that can record fantastic-looking video (in the right hands) and capture acceptable audio! Need a tripod? If it were me, I'd skip a traditional tripod and go with something like a Cobra 3 monopod with the little "tripod" that folds out at the bottom and a foot pedal to unlock the top. With such a small and light camera, it'd be stable enough (I'd set a bag on the feet on a windy day) and with a fluid head or ball head on top, you can also fake a slider, a dolly, and to some extent, a steadicam. That's another 1kg or so. Don't want to offload media using the phone (this is doable with a modern iPhone and a USB-C hub these days) or want to edit on the go? Add an M4 Macbook Air which adds just about 1kg more. It'll be plenty for just about any editing OM3/action camera/phone video. The rest of the stuff mentioned that's needed (sleeping bags, etc) is all a sunk cost in terms of weight for a long biking trip.

Totally get the love for the “celluloid look”: 24p, grain, soft image, widescreen bars. It hits a vibe. But these are aesthetic codes we’ve absorbed over time, not fixed rules. They signal “cinema” because of decades of conditioning, but it’s just one visual language. Some of the most “video” looking content was shot on film. Sitcoms like Friends or Seinfeld used 35mm, but lit and cut for TV brightness and fluidity. Meanwhile, filmmakers like Lynch or Soderbergh have used DV or even iPhones and still delivered pure cinema. It’s not about format alone, but how it’s used. Same with frame rates. 24p stuck around because of early sound sync limitations, and we grew to love its motion blur and softness. 60p feels more “real,” which works for news or sports, but often feels uncanny in narrative. The Hobbit in 48p was a bold move, but many rejected it because it broke the cinematic illusion we’ve grown used to. New generations are wired differently. They grow up on 30p iPhone clips, 60p YouTube, 120Hz TikToks. What feels “cinematic” is shifting. Same with aspect ratios: 4:3, widescreen, vertical. Even black bars have become a kind of shorthand that says, “this is a movie.” Resolution plays a role too. Some DPs shoot in 8K then soften or downscale to avoid the overly digital crispness. Others embrace every pixel. You’ve got people using 35mm, 65mm, anamorphic, spherical, vintage lenses, weird sensors. There’s no single “cinematic” look. Just choices.

Stay of execution for the S9… A. Trade value is trash and I refuse to take that kind of hit, providing… B. I can get some use out of it and soI am going to repurpose it as; spare/backup body/lens (with the Sigma 28-70 which I was keeping as a back up lens anyway) dedicated slow mo unit for such times I need such a thing which is every job, but less than 5% of any job. Ditto ‘gimbal-like’ duty. Potential 3rd angle that I recently decided was overkill to have a camera full-time dedicated to. So occasional roles I could have covered mostly, but may as well use the S9 for. So not quite down to 3 cameras from what was 5 just a few weeks back, but I’ll call it 3.5!

Yesterday I played around with FLC and grading some clips from Korea and the GH7 and 14-140mm. I plan to do a range of tests around settings for softening / sharpening / adding grain / other texture treatments in post, but YT compression is pretty diabolical so I'll need to do quite a number of upload tests to see what settings in Resolve get you what result on YT. I also went much bolder with the colours too, thinking of Gawx. This was a first attempt just to work out the ballpark of where to start. Probably the immediate takeaway is how the grain is quite different per shot, despite it being applied evenly to all shots. Here is a comparison between the timeline in Resolve, the 42Mbps h264 4K export, and the 12.6Mbps h265 4K YT download. Shot 1 - Resolve: Shot 1 - Export: Shot 1 - YT stream: Shot 2 - Resolve: Shot 2 - Export: Shot 2 - YT stream: Shot 3 - Resolve: Shot 3 - Export: Shot 3 - YT stream: Impressions: I'm told that film grain is most noticeable in the mids and shadows, so the distribution is consistent with film, which partly explains why the first image has less noticeable grain as most of the image is quite bright or quite dark. The sky shot seems to have lots of grain as it's a flat surface in the right luma range, but it seems that more grain is retained on the YT stream because there is less movement in the frame for the compression to cover. Whereas on the street scene the grain is considerably reduced despite having similar darker flat surfaces. I didn't apply any softening to this video, so the sharpness is direct from the 14-140mm -> GH7 5.7K to C4K downsample -> C4K 500Mbps Prores 422 -> 1080p timeline image path. The 14-140mm isn't tack sharp but it's not too bad. I've noticed in the past that grain can make images look sharper than they really are, but in this example the grain combined with the compression probably softens detail as a net result. I will definitely be exploring this relationship more. Film is known to have a sharpness of >1 at its maxima, so having some sharpening applied seems appropriate. Overall it seems to do a pretty good job capturing the grain, here's the next frame from the YT download so you can compare what is grain and what is detail and texture in the scene.

Great info from John and definitely agree on the zoom + fast prime combo. I have the 14-140mm and love it. I was tossing up between it and the 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 because I wasn't sure how often I'd use the 60-140mm part of the lens, but since getting it I was really surprised at how often it really comes in handy. Essentially, it means you can shoot whatever you can see, which really helps when you're trying to give a sense of a place. It's slower than the 12-60mm but neither is a low-light lens and the DOF differences aren't relevant in a doco situation. Here's a video I did showing the stabilisation, but it should show you the versatility of the lens. I shoot travel videos and have found that AF zooms best allow you to document the places and experience you're in, as they support the approach I've developed to shooting: Shoot a good variety of shots so you have lots of options in the edit Shoot the wide so you have an establishing shot, shoot the people, shoot the buildings, shoot the motion, shoot the colour Shoot the space (especially if it's large), shoot the details, look down at the ground and look up at the buildings / trees and the sky Think about what makes this place special and shoot that Think about what makes this place feel the way it does and shoot that In general, the faster you can shoot the more you will capture and the more authentic it will be because it will be more spontaneous and more based around your initial impressions rather than shooting slowly and having too much time to think about it. Plus, sometimes things happen very quickly and often they're the most important things to capture. I'd also second @tbonnes idea of combining the action cam and mirrorless. The action cam can be mounted on the bike ready to grab footage at a moments notice and doesn't need to be put away even in torrential rain or a dust storm. Then, once you've stopped you can pull out the mirrorless and get some shots. If you're a masochist then you can even go ahead, setup the mirrorless and hit record, go back again and ride through the frame, then go back and retrieve the camera. It seems like a great way to shoot a film and a spectacular way to remove as much pleasure from the experience as possible. This raises the other option - a drone. It's the fastest way to get shots of you without having to ride the same section of road three times. The laws for flying drones seem to have stabilised in a lot of places allowing drones under a certain weight, but it's something that would require an incredible amount of research beforehand to make sure it wouldn't get confiscated or get you into hot water just for having it.

@Tulpa sound like a cool project. Haven't done anything like it but have brought a bunch of different cameras on training rides filming my wife (a mountainbike pro) for the last decade. I would strongly consider a combination of an action cam and a mirrorless. The Osmo Action paired with their mic mini is a brilliant combo. The camera alone can be used in a bunch of conditions without risk (rain etc.) I have no experience with M 4/3 but used to bring a Samsung NX500 in my back pocket. It was brilliant at that. Has now been replaced with a Fuji X-M5. Same size.

10-bit and weather sealing. There's the rub. Panasonic: GH5, GH5 ii, GH5S, G9, G9ii, GH6, GH7 Olympus: OM-1, OM-1ii, OM-3 Anything smaller, you'll need to forgo 10-bit. For lenses, there are many options from flagship zooms (all are great, new and old) to small primes. However with the latter, there aren't necessarily that many that are weather-sealed. Panasonic: All the new versions of the Leica-branded primes, minus the Leica 15mm f/1.7 Olympus: All the Pro versions and the new versions of the 17mm and 25mm f/1.8. For run and gun in 2025 (AF in video), I'd choose the G9ii (lighter) or the GH7. For lenses, I'd go with two- one all-purpose, do everything lens like the 14-150 (Olympus), 14-140 (Panasonic), or 12-100 (Olympus, heavy!). After, I'd go for the Leica 25mm prime (new version) if weather-sealing is necessary; if not, the old version of the Leica 15mm f/1.7, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 or Panasonic 25mm f/1.7. If 10-bit isn't the issue, I'd go for the smallest camera with the best output. I'd go go a GX85 and an audio recorder, the E-M5 iii, OM5, OM5ii (all of these have decent audio and AF). It's sad that Panasonic cannot offer us anything under 500g with 10-bit, decent audio, and decent IBIS in MFT. For that, they can only offer the S9 in FF with NO pancake lenses- a CRAZY situation that is costing them dearly every single day!

Thanks John. The last camera I used at length was a C100MkII and it really had everything I needed short of a fatter codec. However I would never want to bring something this big with me cycling. Oh sure, stripped with a pancake it definitely shrank, but to the point that ‘control’ became challenging… though the NDs sure were helpful. That S9 you recommended, would you still be happy after a few wireless receivers were attached? Those would certainly raise the footprint on this small powerhouse. As an aside, does anyone make a wireless package with something like a small bolt on receiver that can handle multiple streams with minimal cable to the body? Come to think of it, it would be a bit of a godsend if camera bodies had the option to included built in wireless receivers. I guess we can always dream.

Your checklist is a good start however everyone has their own perception of what defines "cinema". People have been chasing cinematic vibes long before DSLRs and mirrorless cameras were a thing. This forum has been part of that journey, evolving alongside gear and trends. Online, “cinematic” usually means widescreen bars, shallow depth of field, slow-mo coffee shots, and the latest LUT everyone’s hyped about. Anamorphic lenses are popping right now, which probably explains why a lot of camera bros are jumping ship to Lumix to chase that look. My point I guess is that there’s no single “cinema look.” Real cinema is about intention and personal choices. It’s the lighting/exposure that sets the mood, the colors that tell the story, natural dynamic range, and framing that pulls you in. The texture your gear adds, your lens choice, and how you pace things.. that’s what really gives something its look. That’s why directors like Lynch, Soderbergh, and Baker sometimes break code and ditch the big rigs for DV, iPhones, or 35mm. Not because they can’t get a polished image, but because they want immediacy, rawness, and the happy accidents you just don’t get with giant setups. Baker’s Anora used 35mm not for nostalgia, but for the discipline and energy it forces, kind of like his iPhone stuff on the reverse end of the spectrum. Whether those projects click with you visually is personal, but that doesn’t make them any less cinema. Sure, high-end productions lean on ARRI, RED, or Venice with top glass. But smaller cameras get their day too. The FX3 showed up in The Creator, F1 & Severance because of its low-light chops, portability, and multi-cam flexibility. When matched up right, it can hang with the big boys. Chasing the cinematic look is totally valid, especially if it fires up your creativity. Again, your checklist is legit, but remember it’s always evolving and should serve what you want to say. Sometimes the weird or unexpected choices end up making something fresh and your own.

I don't know if I dare click on that because based on just the thumbnail, I want to go and do it. Tomorrow.

The reason that I've been avoiding (and maybe others have to) mentioning the GH7 has nothing to do with low light and everything to do with it being as large and heavy as a lot of FF bodies. If you're willing to go that big, you could also get an EOS R5 or a Z6 III.

I would check out Martijn Doolaard on Youtube, he filmed this on his own with drone and mirrorless camera and phone camera and it is seriously beautiful and high quality visually, and he has a very engaging way. He obviously has a good eye but it's amazing what can be done as a single person. He used a GH5 for this, it was a few years ago, the last 3 years he has been filming himself doing up a cabin in the Italian Alps, I think using a version of Sony A7 and drone. He releases a film each week and again it is beautiful to watch, is both mesmerising, educational, inspiring and medative, good for the soul.Highly recommend

I've never owned a Fuji camera myself, but one major reason I haven't is that many of their cameras don't support 'plug-in power' for external mics, which some camera-mount mics need (or can detect to perform auto mic on/off). You need to check the user manuals carefully if that's important to you. The X-M5 does appear to support it (but e.g. the X-T50 doesn't), so maybe future cameras will as well.

I agree completely. With smaller/lighter lenses like the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 APS-C I find the S9 well balanced and easy to hold, with left hand under the lens and right hand around the body. I have (but don't use very often) the Sirui grip, which is deeper than the Smallrig one and has a high-grip surface on the 'bump' - this is someone else's comparison photo of (top to bottom) the Sirui, JJC and Smallrig grips Even with a (small/light/decent sounding) Sennheiser MKE200 mic mounted on the cold shoe the combo still feels relatively small and light, which is exactly what I wanted when I bought the S9.

I never used the GH7, only the GH6, but I found it to be great in low light; just not "no light" situations. Both of those cameras are mostly about 4k 120fps. The GH7 is about that and the AF in video and Hybrid Zoom. If the cost and size aren't the determining factors, the GH7 is the most fully-featured M43 camera for video today. Want the same features as the GH7? Go for the G9ii something smaller and cheaper, just no insanely long clips. In fact, the G9ii might be my last M43 camera as I don't see a point in anything more.

Yep and is still currently my A cam. It’s going to become C cam after the next job, but only because a pair of S1Rii’s will be in the house by then and my future approach of shooting hybrid 2x identical units albeit with a different focal length on each and in 7.2k open gate allowing me to additionally pull the highest res stills I can whilst retaining open gate for 16:9 and 9:16 edits. If they ever do make a mkII version with nothing more than the S1Rii sensor, I’d be all over that. But they won’t as the S9 body has no fan. I would like to see a cinema style body a la FX line though…

Yes 👋 My name is Simon. I was a full-time Fuji user from 2011-2020, but I then managed to kick that habit and have been 1537 days Fuji sober. But seriously, whilst there is not that much difference in body sizes, depending on the body such as a full-frame 6k open gate shooting Lumix S9 is much smaller than some more recent M4/3 options, it’s the lenses where the biggest difference tends to be. APSC obviously sits between M4/3 and full-frame and I personally think it’s now a bit of a meh option, being somewhat ‘less’ than full-frame and not having the ‘smallest, lightest, fastest’ ability of M4/3. And when I say fastest, I am referring more to AF speed if that is important to you because from experience, the Olympus/OM options trump Fuji in that department. I still can’t see past a mint OG (digital) Olympus OM-1 with perhaps a single one & done lens, the 12-40mm f2.8 giving you FF equivalent of 24-80mm. Plus the action cam. I would happily set off tomorrow to travel around the world for a year with that Oly option.

Had one of my first intense shoots with the S9; this was a concert with a well-known rapper in the Christian Music scene. Used the Panasonic S9 with my Sigma 18-35 (haven't sold it yet). So was using the APSC crop mode; honestly this is a great faux-APSC camera, image quality still phenominal and noise performance isnt bad. I filmed using the 3.3k 4:3 mode which is lovely and allowed me to really easy make a 9:16 edit while still framing for 16:9 or 2:35:1 as well. It's nice too that I can do 48p or 60p without a FOV increase. I am content with this mode so don't have a massive urge to sell my Sigma 18-35 and get proper full frame glass. Eventually i will though. Double aspect ratio markers on the S9 is sweet; I had a 2:35:1 AND 9:16 aspect ratio marker going at once making framing for both mediums so easy. IBIS is so good; I filmed 90% with e-stabilization set to high; this did crop pretty heavy but you forget about it when shooting, and the performance was so good I rarely had to post-stabilize and could easily replicate gimbal tracking shots with a heel-toe walk and holding the camera a bit loosely. The cage and hand-grip definitley helps, and I don't find the camera to be uncomfortable; the Sigma 18-35 is definitely front heavy, but the setup is still a lot more comfortable than my old Z6 with the Atomos Ninja V bolted on. I will say over time the smallrig handle seems to come slightly loose so i have to tighten it every now and then, but when not shooting I also tend to hold the camera in one hand by the grip. Other notes: Battery life is great. Only used two batteries for the entire shoot filming multiple concerts over a few hours. Didnt' even fully run through the second. Lack of viewfinder is not a dealbreaker for me as I only do video; screen could use to be a bit brighter but still usable in direct sunlight. The rear dial feels so cheap; you can easily nudge it half-way between its click points. I don't like it. At least it's very functional. I do find the function button placements to be good, and i can efficiently change settings. A joystick would have been cool. Lack of hot-shoe a non-issue for me as I am 98% video. If I really need it I can whip out my Nikon Z6 for photo work. Camera never overheated once, and it was a very hot day. Definitely love this camera. I do see myself picking up an S5 II on ebay down the line, but I don't see myself ever needing anything better; just would like weather sealing and a more robust build. But the S9 is still totally usable as an A-CAM and can work really well in that capacity if your needs are comparable to mine. Given that I paid $860, its easy to overlook the flaws of this camera.

I just saw my first 360 material from a bike last night and although it was interesting to be able to cut back and forth from multiple angles, I just couldn't get past how distorted everything was on the wides... and it seems to me that this doesn't go away when cropping in. Maybe I need to check out some other material to get a better sense of things... but I like it that you've thrown this option into the mix. Thanks!

Well said Kye, thank you. I've seen your work over the years, it's impressive just how much you are able to ring out of your bodies and lenses. Seriously. And yes, the S9 and 28-200 seems like it can deliver as a smaller unit. I wonder how much larger things get when professional audio comes into play.

Isn’t the question “what camera should I take in addition to the Insta360?” Thats the starting point. Size wise FX2/3/30 might be worth looking at? I suppose it all depends, too, on the intended audience - family & friends, film festival submission, BBC documentary etc. I think if I was undertaking such a mammoth project I’d want a decent cloud account to offload files as I go. The Blackmagic offering might be worth investigating? Sounds fun. And hard work!

And now due to the overreach of the online safety bill in the UK, the government are determined that they will be in the room with us. With regard to the look, have you got anywhere local to you that has featured in a programme/film that you like ? Might be an idea to take a screen grab, put it on your phone as reference for framing and basic time of day and see if you can take some footage to get anywhere close to emulating it.

Indeed. These kind of productions seem to be as much about the presenter as they do the subject/location with every scene being, “here’s me on my epic adventure and here’s me talking to an impoverished local and here’s me deeply respectful at the local temple”. Ie, if it isn’t about you, you can skip all that shit. Some folks are famous because they are in front of the camera and others from being behind.

This is hilarious… and exactly true! 😂 The other option is to just put this upcoming project aside and join a Buddhist monastery… but I’m going to try to take one last run at this type of thing and see what kind of ‘happiness’ it leads to. Lets see…

Wow folks, this is exactly the kind of extra insights and support I was hoping for here. Thank you so much and hats off to all of you! Really 🙂 It's clear that some of you @kyereally understand the actual logistics of trying to pull something like this off while maintaining focus on the basics. @John Matthews Big thank you for getting right to the heart of which bodies and lens choices you would employ, this says a lot! @MrSMW for questioning those choices. And of course eatstoomuchjam for helping to get this party started. Clark, Tbonne and IIka for your insights as well. I need a little time to go through the various camera bodies and lens combinations now and respond further, but please feel free to add anything extra if you feel that it will benefit. I'm super grateful for anything you guys can add beyond what has already been started. With the logistics of the bicycle, bicycle equipment, route and camera/ laptop and actual story, you can see that this is a lot of balls in the air... so another huge thanks for your wise insights here folks! 🙏

It's more work but can be done. This guy cycled from China back to England and shot video along the way. Quite an adventure. https://www.instagram.com/joshreids/ Now, he would be someone to ask for advice from.

I guess it all depends on what you're aiming for @tulpa Something like Harmen Hoeks Silent Hiking is beautiful but like @kye hints at a lot of work Another option is the action cam style of Itchy Boots. Maybe a combination of both. But I would really look into small pocketable options that are easy to get in and out quickly. And for sure consider one of the very small drones as Kye suggested

I'd be apt to leave that to the micro 4/3 enthusiasts like @kye and @John Matthews. My guess, and please do take this with a huge grain of salt, as I haven't owned a real micro 4/3 camera in years, is that the camera body suggestion will look something like a GX85 or OM-3/OM-5 II for small/light/sealed, but I don't follow m43 enough to know off the top of my head which have 10 bit. If the Panasonic 14/2.5 or 20/1.7 are weather sealed, they could be alright. Otherwise, the humble Panasonic 14-42mm kit lens is not bad. The Olympus equivalent might be alright too. You'd probably want one of the primes for low light.

If it's being mounted to the bike, then yes, any of the current crop of decent action cameras would be a good choice, especially assuming that some parts of the tour would be in the rain or dusty areas, etc. Even better yet if they can pair directly with the manufacturer's wireless microphone system (DJI and Insta360 both do this). This can also be augmented with any halfway decent modern phone. Otherwise, if you wouldn't want to go the action camera+phone route, I'd find the smallest and lightest camera on the market with decent weatherproofing and go with that, making sure that all of the lenses are similarly weather-sealed. There are lots of used options, especially that are M43 mount, that would be good fits for small and light and can give better results than an action camera. Better than 1080p is nice, but as far as I know, any festival will still accept it as a resolution. More than 4K is realistically unnecessary unless you plan to crop/reframe in post.

Here at a camera store in Berlin we have the 3 musketeers. 2012 vintage RX1R OG, the one without the AA filter. It's very nice and I can't understand why it only goes for $900 used. Because it's got a much better lens than the Leica Q. No red dot though. RX1R II, the one with the tilt screen, phase-detect AF and pop-up EVF. It also shoots 120p, albeit no 4K. It also has a further innovation - the AA filter can be switched on and off. This was Sony when they felt they needed to catch up with Canon and Nikon by really pushing the boat out. 2014-2015 vintage Sony. The $2000 mint condition used RX1R II is reasonably rare but when you do find one, it's still cheaper than the Leica Q OG and closer to the Leica Q2 in terms of image quality. The pop-up EVF is mechanically a thing of beauty and offers a big field of view. Although without a rubberised eye cup, it isn't the most ergonomic or comfortable. So to the new one, the one with the 10 year gap. Sony have made sure to price it so that nobody buys one, which is good because they want you all to buy E mount lenses. Just to summarise the street prices: RX1R: $800-900 used RX1R II: $2k used RX1R III: $5100 / 4900 euro The lens is identical to the previous cameras. Which is fine to be honest, but I had more issues with the AF in macro mode on the RX1R III vs II. Weird. I also dislike the finish and build quality, doesn't feel as premium. It feels a bit like the A7CR. Not great and nowhere near a Leica and the RX1R II also feels more premium. I do prefer the buttons though on the new camera, they are raised for a more tactile feel. Gone is the pop-up EVF, in place of it a smaller standard one. The resolution of the live-view feed is better, but the overall optic is worse and more pokey. Gone is the articulated screen. Which is a really weird one. In comes a fatter battery - very welcome. 4K is there with no crop in 24p/25p... However, there's no IBIS or even OIS, which is a downer. The AEL button has changed to an AF-ON... Again a welcome change, because the first two models had no back-button AF at all. Well done Sony. So if you're looking for a full frame compact, the first two models are a steal. I got the RX1R II again. I regretted selling it the first time out!

The camera that was supposed to be in so much demand is in stock and already has a $100 off rebate 🤷‍♂️

Testing the Sirui 1.25x adapter at various F-stops, including all the way down to F0.95. I wanted to see how much the Sirui was compatible with faster apertures than F2.8, which is what the manual suggests you use. Setup was with the GH7 shooting 5.7K and the Voigtländer 17.5mm F0.95 lens, which isn't so sharp wide open. The below stills from a 5.7K timeline. I matched exposure on the middle of the image, and used a fixed WB (the Voigt has colour shifts). It seems like it does soften the image slightly, but it's pretty minor and I also can't be sure that I focused it 100% perfectly either (the Voigt goes a little past infinity and the GH7 only does 6x punch-in), so it's at least as sharp as these images. I'll have to test flaring in a separate test, and also other focal lengths, but if you don't have bright lights in frame then it seems like you can go faster than F2.8, at least at around 17mm, which really opens up more possibilities I think. I also randomly grabbed this shot last week with the 14-140mm and Sirui - no idea if I focused it properly but the vibe is pretty nice!

Well I have only had the chance to test the official Arri Log vs Phantom's version (that I have been using for the last 2 seasons) and can't beat what I already have. Been through a load of the official Arri conversion LUT's and all of mine, bought or created and IMO, Phantom beats them all. So either I am doing something wrong or the Phantom LUT is pretty bloody good! As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke..." And I'm too busy to explore further so all I can say is LUMIX users, try Phantom LUT's if intensive colour grading is not your thing!

Jump Desktop Connect is my app of choice for remote editing.

I’m not 100% focused on color accuracy here—I rely on scopes for that—since calibrating two machines in different environments is never going to yield perfect results. My main reason for using BetterDisplay is to match the exact 4096x2304 resolution of my 2019 4K iMac. Retina displays don’t play nicely with standard external monitors, like the one I currently have connected to the M2 Mac Mini. I’ve heard some users connect “dummy” displays to the encoding machine to force the proper resolution, but this setup with Parsec achieves the same effect. If I send a standard 4K signal to the iMac, it doesn’t look as clean—the image is upscaled and noticeably less sharp. With this setup, I just launch Parsec and connect to the M2 Mac Mini. What I see on the iMac looks almost indistinguishable from running natively on the 2019 i3 iMac with 8GB of RAM—except, of course, I get the performance of the M2 Mac Mini. In fact, I often forget I’m even using Parsec. I’ve accidentally shut down the Mac Mini thinking I was turning off the iMac! And the biggest surprise? I’m getting Thunderbolt 4-level performance on my media drives—despite using only a 1Gbps Ethernet connection. As long as latency stays below a certain threshold, the experience is virtually seamless. The iMac just becomes a glorified thin client- exactly what I want.