Marcio Kabke Pinheiro

I would add the Fujifilm X-S10 to the list. Small, have IBIS, good colors, paired with the 18-55 kit is a good video combo. 

That is very unfortunate, sometimes I take for granted how easy it is to walk into a retailer to buy the camera I want or how easy it is to order from an authorized retailer.

I see no signaling from Panasonic about smaller models. Yes, they said that will make smaller cameras, but always saying that "creators" wants them. Creators = vloggers. And since looks like that Panny wants to niche m43 in video, probably their next camera will be a G100 sucessor - as Sony looks like that their APS-C line will be only ZVs...

Sensor wise, the m43 is kinda muddy now. Have the great 20mp stacked in the OM-1, but is a expensive sensor. Have the 25mp sensor in the GH6, but looks like it was designed from ground up for video (for still, from what I've seen, is worse than the old 20mp sensor). And the current 20mp old sensor. m43 needs a new sensor, 26mp probably (since APS-C upped their pixel count - for me, 20mp is enough), BSI, non-stacked but with good readout. Kinda a m43 version of the 26mp Fuji. But...no rumors about that.

Also, I think that Panasonic is indeed missing a HUGE opportunity regarding the LX100. Everbody paying huge sums for a X100V, and...a LX100 is a much more versatile camera. Still have my LX100 mk I, and for some time I had a X100s; the LX100 trounced it, specially in low light.

Put a better EVF (the G100 one is a good candidate), maybe a slightly larger lens that covers all the sensor, or keep the current one (in a 26mp sensor, would result in a 22mp image), a joystick where the rec button is, move the rec button to the top plate, and you're good to go.

(I look almost everyday for a good used / new price in a LX100 II - is the only camera that will make me sell my LX100)

I see no signaling from Panasonic about smaller models. Yes, they said that will make smaller cameras, but always saying that "creators" wants them. Creators = vloggers. And since looks like that Panny wants to niche m43 in video, probably their next camera will be a G100 sucessor - as Sony looks like that their APS-C line will be only ZVs...

Sensor wise, the m43 is kinda muddy now. Have the great 20mp stacked in the OM-1, but is a expensive sensor. Have the 25mp sensor in the GH6, but looks like it was designed from ground up for video (for still, from what I've seen, is worse than the old 20mp sensor). And the current 20mp old sensor. m43 needs a new sensor, 26mp probably (since APS-C upped their pixel count - for me, 20mp is enough), BSI, non-stacked but with good readout. Kinda a m43 version of the 26mp Fuji. But...no rumors about that.

Also, I think that Panasonic is indeed missing a HUGE opportunity regarding the LX100. Everbody paying huge sums for a X100V, and...a LX100 is a much more versatile camera. Still have my LX100 mk I, and for some time I had a X100s; the LX100 trounced it, specially in low light.

Put a better EVF (the G100 one is a good candidate), maybe a slightly larger lens that covers all the sensor, or keep the current one (in a 26mp sensor, would result in a 22mp image), a joystick where the rec button is, move the rec button to the top plate, and you're good to go.

(I look almost everyday for a good used / new price in a LX100 II - is the only camera that will make me sell my LX100)

Would love to see it too, but I guess that in m43, Panasonic will only go with th GH line and a G100 sucessor - looks like they want to niche m43 in high end video / blogger video. Maybe a G9 sucessor. But I don't see a new GX, and for sure no more LX and FZ lines.

In fact, I did not even understand the GH6. The "H" is for "hybrid", and the GH6 is much worse than GH5 for photos, is almost a video camera only.

And probably the research for the S5 II PDAF started some time ago, why they did not put it on the GH6, even if it meant a new delay? Maybe the (still not named, no one look for the sensors in microscopes?) sensor manufacturer for the GH6 did not have the tech to do a PDAF one?

Completely agree with you about the Fuji, specially in slow pans, is jumpy as hell. Never used the Canons, but the footages that I saw looks good.

And Olympus was always the best for me, had the E-M5 MK II and was superb. Even the E-M10 MK III, which in theory had in inferior IBIS, was better than Fuji, and on par with my GX9 when I had both. Dunno if they changed something.

Now Fuji will have to up its AF game. It is starting to be kinda embarrassing...

If Panasonic do a GX10 with a good EVF, PDAF and Ok video, I will be tempted to come back.

https://www.l-rumors.com/fully-leaked-s5ii-s5iix-and-14-28mm-specs/

Looks like that the X have ProRes and IP streaming functions. Still, strange to have a specific model just for that.

And, ironically, the AF of my X-S10 is kinda of ennerving me now...

(please Panasonic, make a rangefinder S5 II, even with some capped video specs - spoiler, will not happen, hehehehe)

And, ironically, the AF of my X-S10 is kinda of ennerving me now...

(please Panasonic, make a rangefinder S5 II, even with some capped video specs - spoiler, will not happen, hehehehe)

Indeed - even worse than previous Panasonics. Hope it could be better with a firmware update.

Saw that mention for a smaller camera, and hope that it would be another GX. But my bets are on a G100 sucessor - that`s the way that I saw Panny going with m43 - high end video (GH line) and vlogger. The 9mm (amazing lens, one that I would buy in a heartbeat if I've stayed with the format) is target for the second crowd. The revamped 12-35 is for the first (albeit good for stills too). But before these two lenses, only the f/1.7 zooms.

I need an EVF - I use my cameras both for stills and video. For the same reason, like rangefinder-like cameras, because they attract much less attention. And looks like they are disspearing - no GXs from Panasonic, the Pens are dead, only have the Fujifilm X-E4 (which was the camera I was expecting most but...no IBIS and much less controls than the X-E3, it was a replacement for the X-A line, for me a big deception) and the Sony A7C (interesting size and looks, but with a terrible EVF, bigger lenses, and I doubt that will be a A7C MK II).

I'm for small size too. Gone to Fuji since was the almost only way to go (other APS-C mirrorless lines are a joke - the Canon R7 is very interesting, but almost no lenses and DSLR style). Fuji zooms are very good and comparable in size with the m43 zooms in size, weight and price - but a tad larger for my tastes (that's why I never had a Oly Pro zoom in the past). Hope that more lenses like the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 appears - large aperture, smaller size, good plastics to keep the weight down.

No interest in FF for the moment. Except the A7C, all bodies are "look at me I'm (pretending) to be a pro" DSLR style, and zooms are much bigger. They could get my attention if the make small zooms with f/4 or 5.6 with very good quality - which I doubt that would appear. Yeah, you can get small primes, but (specially for travel) I need zooms.

WIll always love m43 - my Pen E-P1 and GH2 will never be sold, as the Panny 12-32 and the Oly 45mm f/1.8. Miss the 45-175 zoom (is exactly the kind of zoom that I'm talking about - small, light, good IQ).  

Holy shit - looks like Panasonic have a winner, at least for the price. If only Panasonic had PDAF since the beginning of the L mount, market could be very different now.

Looks like @MrSMW will be a happy camper. And, if I had the intention to move to FF, as an amateur, this could be my number one choice.

I moved from m43 just because I don't see this kind of camera in the future.

In Panny camp, do not see another GX model, maybe a Gxx at last. Looks like they plans for m43 is niche video, GH6 and vlog cameras. The last lenses releases indicate that too.

In Om Digital camp, only probably a O-M10 (but if they do the same move of the O-M5, and package a E-M5 MK III in a E-M10 body, plus mic input and with PDAF, could be a VERY interesting camera). But their future is unclear - and they are betting heavily in the wildflife / adventure crowd.

A GX9 with pdaf, better EVFand mic input would be a perfect camera for me. But I doubt that t will exist.

Some things that I've noticed just now.

- Saw no photos of the card slots, but someone remembered that ProRes should mandate the use of CF Express cards; this could be one difference between both models (SD Cards only for the S5II, CF + Sd for the S5IIX.

- The camera have active cooling. You can see vents underneath the front hump of the EVF and on the sides of it.

I've started seriously with photography and video with m4/3. As the opposite of the majority here, I'm no professional photographer or filmmaker. Probably could be classified as "enthusiast".

I like to make movies and stills on my trips, love to film or photograph live concerts, even made some videos for some friend's bands. m4/3 was perfect for me - VERY small lenses, does not attract any attention from people when using them on trips, always been dismissed by security at concert's doors (only happened one time, with the GH2, that looked like a DSLR...), and could carry all the lenses that I needed in a messenger bag.

In my last trip, before covid, had a GX85 with the 12-32 pancake zoom, the Panasonic 42,5 f/1.7, the Panasonic 45-175 and a Rokinon 12mm f/2. Never got in a situation during the trip that I needed other lenses.

To be kind of invisible on trips and concert, I had a primary rule: never use a body that looked like a "professional" DSLR. For this reason, "rangefinder" bodies are my preferred, most people even mistake them as film cameras. Had the GX7, GX85 and GX9; and midrange Olympus silver bodies for the same reason: E-M10 MK I and III, E-M5 MKII. No more GHs after the GH2, or E-M1s.

Then I sensed the tide - m43 probably would become a niche format. Full video for Panasonic, wildlife and adventure for OM Digital. The horrendous G100, the E-M10 MK IV and E-P7(which was already developed before the spinoff) were the last discreet m4/3 cameras - and I see no signs of them returning. And yes, I think that the future of the format is in danger - OM Digital must sell to keep afloat, and Panasonic could pull a Samsung in any moment.

Lenses, same thing. With the exception of the (amazing, in my opinion) Panasonic 9mm f/1.7, almost only Olympus PROs and the Panasonic f/1.7 duo. Big lenses, APS-C size or bigger when you brings equivalency on the equation (and I, contrary to most people, looks on equivalency most about low light that depth of field).

Coupled with the fact that here in Brazil Panasonic and Olympus never sold their cameras officially, and the prices are very high, I started looking to APS-C. Easy choice: APS-C was already left to dust by Sony (albeit the newer primes are good, the bodies still sucks), Nikon and Canon did not have options at the time (EOS-M was out of question, and the Nikon and Canon APS-Cs mirrorless came after and still have very few lenses), and I gone to Fuji. 

Fuji is much better then m4/3? Compared to my previous kits, kind of. But not always.

First: weight. The retro cult of Fuji lovers despises anything that is plastic, hence the lenses are kind of heavy compared to my previous ones, but not using equivalency. The 18-55 f/2.8-4 is AMAZING compared to the smaller m4/3 zooms; never thought that the m43 zooms that I had were bad, but this one is another league; ok, I could have the Oly 12-40 f/2.8, but it is larger, heavier and pricier. The 55-200 is VERY good too.

The "Nocticrons" are lovely. Tiny, sharp, have the 35 and the 50, probably will get the full set. Are the "Olympus 45mm f/1.8" of the system.

But to make the same equivalent travel set of my last trip will be heavier. Would like to see some "Nocticron zooms", f/4 or even f/4-5.6 - the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is an example, will get one as soon Sigma releases a X version.

Another problem on Fuji is IBIS. I have the only "discreet" body that have it, the X-S10. If the X-E4 had IBIS, would had bought it on pre-order, but...purists won. And would have 2 interfaces, PSAM and retro-dials, have a little bit of preference for PSAM (works better with custom positions), but no problem with retro ones, just wants consistency.

Fuji is better for me now, in comparison, because of two factors:

- PDAF all across the line - for single AF...m4/3 is better, a tiny fraction but a noticiable one. Could be the larger DOF, but in S-AF it was a little faster and confident. But for moving subjects (almost never used C-AF before, but now I have a little daughter...), MUCH better. Good rate for stills, and for movies, more than good enough. Ok, I never had a PDAF m4/3 camera, because only the E-M1s and the E-M5 MK III had it, but this week I filmed my daughter going back and forth on a swing, with very good AF, a thing that was impossible from my previous cameras.

- Possibility to pull in focus DURING recording, withour recording the enlarged image - is a thing that I've always wanted when filming concerts, and in the m43, only was implemented now, on the GH6...now that I have it, could not go back.

Worst problems?
- The IBIS is kind of bad for vídeo. Looks like the same algorythm is used for stills and video, very jumpy on vídeo. Not a deal breaker, but even my GX85 was better. And from the samples that I saw, were not fixed in the both the X-H2 models.
- No tracking on video. And the face detection have a serious problem - works VERY well when you have only one person on the frame, but put two or more people and the system goes crazy, jumping from face to face. You should have an option to lock on a specific face, or have tracking.

Sold a lot of my m4/3 stuff already, kept the GH2 and the E-P1 (for sentimental reasons and low value nowadays), will keep the 12-32 pancake and the 45mm f/1.8. And I have to confess that the OM-5 look like an almost perfect camera for me - good PDAF (juding by the OM-1 performance), small and not "DSLRish" body, good enough video, and that amazing IBIS.

But will not have focus pull assistance during video, no smaller and lighter revised zooms on sight, and the future of the format still a danger.

I prefer IBIS, but it have to be good for video. Oly is best, Panasonic and Canon are almost on par, dunno about Nikon. Sony still have some work, and Fuji is worst. But even Fuji is miles better than the Sony's initial generations.

I like a lot the idea of gyro data, and saw VERY good footage from it. But you have to shoot wider than expected, because gyro uses a crop, and the crop factor will be only known when you stabilize on computer.

 

Almost all OM System videos are people on the outdoors, covered in snow to the waist, shooting under monsoons, base jumping inside an active volcano...their intended demographic for this camera is well defined.

(the last one is a joke, IP53 is not rated for volcano swimming)

My FZ1000 arrived. Good news - everything is working beside the problema that the previous owner said. The EVF looks a little hazy (or I forgot how are the EVFs from the past) but very workable, the lamination of the LCD is kinda bad - but only when the camera is off, with the LCD on it dissapears. Did not test the HDMI, conector looks ok, probably a bad solder. The rest of the camera is in excellent shape - and came with 2 batteries and a 64Gb Sandisk Extreme card.

Not so good - the "dust in the lens" is not in the lens, is in the sensor. Since I will almost always use it wide open at concerts, probably will go unnoticed. Will try the "bottle with vaccum cleaner" technique that people use with the LX100, but I do not have very high hopes. If the dust bothers me, probably will use the iFixit guide to get to the sensor - as last resort, the procedure looks easier than most cameras, but the sensor assembly is mounted on springs and probably is very easy to lose the sensor calbration.

But for $270 (the prices here of the FZ1000 used are around double than that), I'm happy.

 

I'll be sure to post my cack handed results on iBrokeit shortly then.

You always note the difference - I tought than moving from the 20mp m4/3 to 26mp X-mount will not bring too much of a difference, but I was wrong. Both in quality and storage requirements...

For some instances, 40mp would be very useful. For concert shooting, the ability to crop from 40mp to 20mp would be very welcome. But for "no crop" work, not so much.

One thing that was never explained (or tested): if you drop the resolution from 40mp to 20mp in stills, it is oversampled or line-skipped? If you don't need the 40mp for some work, a oversampled 20mp image could both bring less storage requirements AND (maybe) more color accuracy. This would be a very interesting alternative to me - albeit, if oversampled, probably would not diminish rolling shutter (could even increase it).

And for video, the 40mp sensor needing to crop to be oversampled in 4k was a HUGE bummer.
 

Ciao Andrew, this news really touched me a lot, believe me it really makes me angry to hear about cancer at a young age. I'm very sorry. I'm sure you won't like what I'm about to say, feel free to insult me or kick me out of this forum . What i am about to say doesn't fit your beliefs and many others here. Many people are dying during this time for cancer and heart diseases. Many of these die because of the Covid vaccine, all this obviously is hidden by the politics ,media and especially by  doctors. I understand that this is unacceptable and that not everyone has the means to discern this type of information. Did your sister get the vaccines? If I were you I would dig it more on this topic.

I've started seriously with photography and video with m4/3. As the opposite of the majority here, I'm no professional photographer or filmmaker. Probably could be classified as "enthusiast".

I like to make movies and stills on my trips, love to film or photograph live concerts, even made some videos for some friend's bands. m4/3 was perfect for me - VERY small lenses, does not attract any attention from people when using them on trips, always been dismissed by security at concert's doors (only happened one time, with the GH2, that looked like a DSLR...), and could carry all the lenses that I needed in a messenger bag.

In my last trip, before covid, had a GX85 with the 12-32 pancake zoom, the Panasonic 42,5 f/1.7, the Panasonic 45-175 and a Rokinon 12mm f/2. Never got in a situation during the trip that I needed other lenses.

To be kind of invisible on trips and concert, I had a primary rule: never use a body that looked like a "professional" DSLR. For this reason, "rangefinder" bodies are my preferred, most people even mistake them as film cameras. Had the GX7, GX85 and GX9; and midrange Olympus silver bodies for the same reason: E-M10 MK I and III, E-M5 MKII. No more GHs after the GH2, or E-M1s.

Then I sensed the tide - m43 probably would become a niche format. Full video for Panasonic, wildlife and adventure for OM Digital. The horrendous G100, the E-M10 MK IV and E-P7(which was already developed before the spinoff) were the last discreet m4/3 cameras - and I see no signs of them returning. And yes, I think that the future of the format is in danger - OM Digital must sell to keep afloat, and Panasonic could pull a Samsung in any moment.

Lenses, same thing. With the exception of the (amazing, in my opinion) Panasonic 9mm f/1.7, almost only Olympus PROs and the Panasonic f/1.7 duo. Big lenses, APS-C size or bigger when you brings equivalency on the equation (and I, contrary to most people, looks on equivalency most about low light that depth of field).

Coupled with the fact that here in Brazil Panasonic and Olympus never sold their cameras officially, and the prices are very high, I started looking to APS-C. Easy choice: APS-C was already left to dust by Sony (albeit the newer primes are good, the bodies still sucks), Nikon and Canon did not have options at the time (EOS-M was out of question, and the Nikon and Canon APS-Cs mirrorless came after and still have very few lenses), and I gone to Fuji. 

Fuji is much better then m4/3? Compared to my previous kits, kind of. But not always.

First: weight. The retro cult of Fuji lovers despises anything that is plastic, hence the lenses are kind of heavy compared to my previous ones, but not using equivalency. The 18-55 f/2.8-4 is AMAZING compared to the smaller m4/3 zooms; never thought that the m43 zooms that I had were bad, but this one is another league; ok, I could have the Oly 12-40 f/2.8, but it is larger, heavier and pricier. The 55-200 is VERY good too.

The "Nocticrons" are lovely. Tiny, sharp, have the 35 and the 50, probably will get the full set. Are the "Olympus 45mm f/1.8" of the system.

But to make the same equivalent travel set of my last trip will be heavier. Would like to see some "Nocticron zooms", f/4 or even f/4-5.6 - the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is an example, will get one as soon Sigma releases a X version.

Another problem on Fuji is IBIS. I have the only "discreet" body that have it, the X-S10. If the X-E4 had IBIS, would had bought it on pre-order, but...purists won. And would have 2 interfaces, PSAM and retro-dials, have a little bit of preference for PSAM (works better with custom positions), but no problem with retro ones, just wants consistency.

Fuji is better for me now, in comparison, because of two factors:

- PDAF all across the line - for single AF...m4/3 is better, a tiny fraction but a noticiable one. Could be the larger DOF, but in S-AF it was a little faster and confident. But for moving subjects (almost never used C-AF before, but now I have a little daughter...), MUCH better. Good rate for stills, and for movies, more than good enough. Ok, I never had a PDAF m4/3 camera, because only the E-M1s and the E-M5 MK III had it, but this week I filmed my daughter going back and forth on a swing, with very good AF, a thing that was impossible from my previous cameras.

- Possibility to pull in focus DURING recording, withour recording the enlarged image - is a thing that I've always wanted when filming concerts, and in the m43, only was implemented now, on the GH6...now that I have it, could not go back.

Worst problems?
- The IBIS is kind of bad for vídeo. Looks like the same algorythm is used for stills and video, very jumpy on vídeo. Not a deal breaker, but even my GX85 was better. And from the samples that I saw, were not fixed in the both the X-H2 models.
- No tracking on video. And the face detection have a serious problem - works VERY well when you have only one person on the frame, but put two or more people and the system goes crazy, jumping from face to face. You should have an option to lock on a specific face, or have tracking.

Sold a lot of my m4/3 stuff already, kept the GH2 and the E-P1 (for sentimental reasons and low value nowadays), will keep the 12-32 pancake and the 45mm f/1.8. And I have to confess that the OM-5 look like an almost perfect camera for me - good PDAF (juding by the OM-1 performance), small and not "DSLRish" body, good enough video, and that amazing IBIS.

But will not have focus pull assistance during video, no smaller and lighter revised zooms on sight, and the future of the format still a danger.

Manufaturers will not allow it now, afraid of a massive lawsuit from RED.

1. The video is not "fake." What is wrong with you people?
2. The 8K is indeed from the 50 megapixel sensor, and since 8K requires over 33 megapixels, the 8K is obviously not pixel-binned (but the 4K is). The 8K is from a crop of the sensor because the sensor has more pixels than is required for 8K.
3. The extra pixels, from the above, could be used for the extra room needed for digital stabilization. Given how good the stabilization is, way better than any optical stabilization or sensor stabilization, I can believe there is at least some electronic stabilization.
4. The Samsung has extra, more powerful, stabilization setting; I had interpreted that as adding electronic. I did not use that setting, just the standard stabilization.
5. Samsung only claims its wide lens has optical stabilization. They make no statements that I can find about electronic stabilization, let alone an in-camera gimbal (really?). But I agree, te stabilization is too good to be plain optical.
6. Sony cameras, like the fx3, with gyro do have a setting that uses the gyro along with IBIS and/or OIS while shooting. It is called "Active" stabilization. But in no way can you walk and shoot with these cameras using that setting. You can futher smooth with catalyst Browse in post using the gyro data even when shot using Active stabilization.
7. The Fold4 does not have 4K at frame rates above 60.
8. Whatever the form of stabilization, it has limits. You can hit those with mechanical stabilization (IBIS, OIS) or digital. So showing the limits does not identify stabilization type. Walking briskly with theh camera, as in the video, is a pretty severe test of the stabilization system.
9. If you want to see the video I uploaded from Vimeo do NOT download the "8K UHD" version from Vimeo; download the "original" upload (which is 8K of course). The Vimeo 8K version is compressed by Vimeo and is not what I uploaded (and is much smaller).
I may try 4K60 stabilization tests. At 60p the high shutter speeds are less of a problem. 60p is not an option for 8K.