noone

If I had the money, this looks a nice camera and  much of the market it is aimed at will LOVE it.       The R5 is ridiculous to me (more a look what we can do type thing than something most people can actually use as things go).      Of course you CAN get the R5 and not/hardly use its headline features but that is a large tax to pay for that.

Next up, I expect Sony to both surprise and disappoint and I think Sony really needs an A7iv against the R6 (for actual sales) more than it needs a A7siii against the R5 (for status).

Not being a professional anything, I gave up on Adobe at Photoshop 4 many many years ago.

I do sometimes think I might get a recent version of Elements but not anything I need.

My limited video wants are met by Power Director.

Have you tried going via a different country/area , maybe through an intermediary?

I had a brief affair with Nikon when I was married to Pentax (now divorced and Nikon left me too).

Dunno what it is but i have no desire for anything Nikon now no matter how good it is.     I guess it might just be too expensive to go there.

Really liked SOME of their lenses though.     Come to think of it, I left when they started making their lenses less usable on older cameras and less adaptable to other systems.

Still, I hope they get things right  for their fans.

10 hours ago, kye said:

 

You're welcome!

Thanks Kye,

Not a coffee fiend but that was fun.

Had to look up the cameras and the Veo 1310 model is only 1.2 (one point two) mega pixels but can shoot at speeds up to 423,350 fps at tiny sizes, 10,860 at full size.

They have a few 4k models

The Flex 4k is a cinema model that shoots up to 1000 fps in 4k

https://www.phantomhighspeed.com/products/cameras/4kmedia/flex4k

These are all crazy things that in some cases would cost more than a house.

GULP! Just noticed their flagship high speed camera shoots at up to one million FPS though just over a mega pixel sensor.....That is insane!

Still, that video gives me some ideas for my little RX100 iv (just mucking around 1000 fps is not that great but can be fun but 500fps is ok as is 250fps...all upsized to full HD in camera).

Interesting that Sony was one of the partners.       Will it be in phones first or an A7#?

Sadly, I still think there is a FAR greater chance that in 2022, the new Olympus flag ship camera will be an E-PL# (how about an extended warranty as well as that five filter kit?).

2 hours ago, bjohn said:

 I feel like today's smartphones can outperform most real pocket cameras.

I would agree for most cameras that have tiny sensors but not for the 1 inch sensors like the RX100 iv.

After now using it for a few days, in good light, it is not a huge way behind my FF camera with a reasonable lens for regular photos and in low light, its lens is very nice and I rate it very good for low light (but then it is a shade of my A7s for that but so is pretty much everything else I have had). .

I do not think I will be frustrated all that often now either as i have it set up to use manual mode with auto ISO and easy to change all the settings.

DXO (just a rough guide to me) has its sensor even being about the same as some M43 cameras just behind even some current cameras and ahead of many older ones.    Of the cameras I have had, it sits pretty close even to the APSC NEX 3-N I had recently which I think has IQ much better than a phone for stills anyway...It is a better camera to me than the Pentax, Canon, Nikon and Olympus DSLRS I have had and better than the Oly M43 camera and I even prefer it to the GX7 I had (and loved) and only the NEX-3N, two A7s and first version A7 take better photos and only the A7s better video (and in some cases not even that).

I have not used it for video yet really other than mucking around with the HFR video (that HFR mode on the mode dial is a real bonus).

The local zoo has reopened this weekend so I am possibly taking it (and the A7s) there today.

I barely use a phone as a phone let alone for photos/video but i think it will still be sometime before I would prefer a phone for photos and videos (that day WILL come but not close to it yet).

2 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

 

@noone I think the appeal of the 24mm FD isn't just that it's a 24mm f1.4. It's that it has vintage coatings (the SSC aspherical matching or near-matching first-generation K35s I've read in everything but aperture shape, but who knows) and has hard focus stops so mechanically it is more suited for "cinevising" or rehousing than the 24mm EF f1.4, which would otherwise probably be preferable (sharper) and the look is softer and more organic than Sigma Art, which surely would outperform it, too.

 

I absolutely love my FD 24 1.4 L, I just do not think of it as an investment.

In fact, I had it listed on ebay a few years ago for a LOT less than I should have when I needed the money and it did not sell and that was when there were still only a couple of newer make/model 24 1.4s available....It is probably worth less than i paid for it (and I got it for a reasonable price on the lower end of what people were paying).

My copy has a bit of a ratty exterior but the glass is great.

No way on the planet i would sell it now.

The dissolving bearing issue is a very real thing with some of the FD L lenses (my FD 85 1.2 L has it, so the lens is worth a fraction of what it was and the issue affect various FD L lenses quite commonly), that plus there are now OTHER 85 1.2 manual focus lenses available for a lot less than what the user FD 85s  were going for would have brought down the prices too.

Of course, ANY lens can be considered an investment if it makes you money but for me as an amatuer, I doubt I will ever have any lenses that increase in price substantially.

My favourite lens is a  Canon 17mm tilt shift and it was expensive but has lost money and once a version ii comes out (if ever or maybe an R version) I expect it to tank in value though it is priceless to me as I doubt i could ever afford to replace it now.

 I think that lenses that become more valuable are not that common (I would love to own the ones that do though).

The ones that do are often the ones that were expensive to begin with and are really good and not made in big numbers.

Ones that would not have had a big market in the film days but with a lot more people wanting them, supply and demand keeps them going up.

Very easy though if someone makes a modern variant of a classic for the bottom to fall out of the market.

A lens like the Canon FD 24 1.4 L (and more so the earlier Canon 24 1.4) were for a while some of very few 24 1.4 lenses and once they could be adapted to other systems, the price went way up (the earlier one probably still is a collectors item).    Now that there are lots more versions and many of them better optically, the FD 24 1.4 can be found a lot cheaper now (though some will stay very high on Ebay but less likely to sell now.

In the early auto focus days, Pentax put out the brilliant little 1.7x auto focus adapter (mine cost about $100 with a film camera) .      When DSLRs first came along and Pentax had few longer AF lenses and had long stropped making it (I think it had lead glass in it), the prices went through the roof (I saw them for around $1200 on Ebay)...Suddenly a new supply magically appeared (Pentax never said a peep about it) and the prices dropped dramatically and as new AF lenses came it went back to normal.

My most expensive lenses have all dropped in price and I have very rarely made a profit selling a lens, even a good one (I did get around $300 for a Minolta 85 that cost me a tiny fraction of that from memory).

Some lenses i would regard as investments would be (and are ones I would like).

Nikon 300 f2 (many of the few that were made were converted to video/film use)..I almost got one at $11000  when i had the money and last i saw it was well over $20000.

Original Noct Nikkor (mainly collectors I think).     Almost got one of them too prices seem to have stopped rising on it but if you got one new you would have made a great investment.

Minolta 24 2.8 VFC  with variable field curvature (not many made and still very useful).

I am sure there are many others and many Cine lenses made in small numbers but the percentage of lenses made would be tiny.

Well my plans changed a LOT but that was AGES ago (all te way back to March!).

By accident I got the Tokina 60-120 which is now one of my all time favourite lenses, I no longer want the 20mm, I DO want a longer AF portrait type lens (the 60-120 Tokina would be IT if it was AF) and have added a little Sony RX100 iv (arrived yesterday) and it is going to get a LOT of use in the day time at least so as a day time 24-70/140 (clearzoom seems ok and easy to use with it).

My RX100 iv turned up.     As expected, MUCH better in looks than the photos showed and no different to any other i suspect and of the three small issues, one is no issue for me, another has not happened at all yet (and if it does will not affect image quality) and the third I would never have known really if i had not been told about it and again, no affect to IQ...bargain of the year for me (in a year i have gotten a few real bargains).

I am going to, love this camera on the one hand and get very frustrated (just occasionally) as i have large clumsy hands and it is small with tiny buttons.

Already i can highly recommend it (i am used to Sony menus so no problems using it right away).

35 minutes ago, JChristophe said:

Thanks a lot for your help. Yes, I tend to exclude the Canons because of the video.

If you're mainly stills oriented, what made you chose the RX100 over the LX100? Is it the size? the fact it has built-in ND filters? Tilt screen? 1080p slo-mo and stabilization?

Main reason was the price!      I just found one with three small issues (that do not affect image quality) and the photos of it were pretty high res ones that show items a lot worse than it likely is (I know when i sold some lenses, if I took a photo with higher end gear, an external little dust spot could make it look bad while you would not even see it in real life) that no one else wanted on Ebay...I got it for LESS than what some people are selling the RX100 FIRST version for.     Of course it remains to be seen how well it works but it was sold as in good working condition.

Tilt screen and NDs are big factors for me though and the more I see stuff about it the more I want to play with the super slow mo but that is only SINCE buying it.

The video in HD (which i will mainly use it for) I think MIGHT be better too ...up to 100mbps VS 28 MBPS for the LX100 (Why is it so many Panasonic cameras max their 1080 out at 28mbps but their 4k can be much higher?).

Any of them really would have done me as long as it is pocketable in a decent size jeans pocket or coat pocket at least (it will not replace my FF A7s).

I have been looking for a while for a pocket camera but i have just gone the other way and am getting a RX100 iv (Mine has a few small issues but was really really cheap so I can test the waters with no huge loss).

Others i was looking at included the RX100 iii and Rx100 v and LX100 (first version) as well as the Canon G1x ii and Canon G1X iii and the Canon 1 inch sensor cameras.

The Canon G1X ii has a larger sensor than M43 and a still fairly fast f2-3.9 lens while being not that much bigger but a little heavier than the LX100.

The G1X iii has an even bigger APSC sensor and is virtually the same size and weight as the LX100 ..the iii has some really nice features but a slower lens.

The thing that would let the Canons down for you though is I do not think the video is all that great from them.

G1X ii is almost my ideal camera for a hybrid point and shoot optional EVF rather than fixed one of the iii

I do think the image quality of the cameras with the Sony one inch sensors is on a par with M43 cameras other than 20mp ones for stills and for video depends on the camera compared to.

I am more stills oriented though.

I would love someone to put out a camera with ND filter, mic jack, headphone socket, 24-120 f2-f4 zoom, articulating screen, 1 inch or larger sensor with decent 4k 30p and full HD at around 16mp and fitted in a larger pocket....Oh and a decent EVF that can be optional or slides into the body....bonus points for tilting.

Sooo many have lots of those but i think there are none that have all. 

No camera gear should be looked at as an "investment" (a very few items do rise in price over time though) and in a sense it really IS all disposable.

That said, there have been a few items that had a particular regularly occurring fault over time but often too late for any remedy.

Some that come to mind that I have had, I have two Olympus 43 HG zoom lenses that developed known faults (something to do with a cable snapping I think).     They were my late dads and I want to see if they work at all at some point (no camera anymore to use them on).

Another issue I have is with Canon FD L lenses have a dissolving bearing issue that ends up making focusing very very loose.

It does not affect all of them but it does my FD 85 1.2 L (unlike lesser FD lenses that use plastic bearings, I understand some FD Ls use rubber coated brass bearings and the rubber disintegrates).    It turns a valuable lens into a much less valuable lens or even a paperweight and bad luck if you are the new owner of an old lens it starts happening with after you get it.

If your lens is known for the fault, sell it now unless you REALLY like it

Years ago I had a very expensive for the time Sony point and shoot camera....it was a total piece of crap and it also developed a known fault (the sensor ended up just taking weird solarized photos after about a year of use).     Way too late I found out I could have got it repaired (after I threw it out).

27 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Had the GX7 as well.  Sadly lost it.  Great video camera.  Wanted to buy another one used.  Found out that one could buy a new/refurbished/warrantied Olympus EM10III for less than this 7 year old LUMIX cam. (!) Olympus is going to be trove of value for videographers over the next few years.  I'm not scared off by the recent news; kind of excited about it for mainly that reason.  

I loved the GX7 as a daytime camera and that tilting EVF is what made it for me (the field sequential EVF was not an issue for me but i know some people don't like it).

8 minutes ago, leslie said:

good luck with the new lens, i have one on the way as well but not olympus. Like fuzzynormal i also like the older mf lenses

bodycap lenses count, i know this because i have the 15mm besides its not really dead until its no longer breathing (exempli gratia, humans) or is broken and can no longer function as intended (exempli gratia, machines). I think its sad that people have already written olympus off, however the cameras and lenses will work for years to come. If you have olympus and like it, i wouldn't suggest getting skittish just yet and jumping ships.

I want to get another 15mm Oly body cap lens but to use again on my A7s with clearzoom.    The "lens" was a lot of fun and I prefer it on the A7s than i did on a GX7 (though it was fun on that too).

37 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

No, it is not just on the telephoto end.
For instance one of my favorite lenses is a SLR Magic 8mm f4, and no way a FF lens could be as small as that teeny tiny lens! 
This is great for vlogging/travel, or if you want to use a MFT camera as a higher end replacement for a GoPro in a dynamic shot. 
 

While I actually do agree generally, the Oly bodycap lenses are smaller and lighter and I actually PREFERRED my 15mm  Oly lens on my A7s with a little clearzoom to using it on my GX7 (not a great IQ lens but a lot of fun on both).

Any small M43 lens CAN fit on to A7 cameras and will have vignetting which can be gotten rid of with clearzoom.

The issue is it is not great with lenses with electronic aperture control  but those that do have mechanical aperture should work ok.

46 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Olympus isn't dead to me yet! I just purchased an Olympus lens yesterday:

Is my first ever Olympus lens too. (if you don't count my Olympus bodycap lens)

It is a very nice little lens.     I wish i still had mine for when (if) I find an old first gen EM1 a little down the track.

9 minutes ago, DAEMANO said:

Wow your approach is disingenuous (pivoting from FF to 1" superzoom to try and prove a point) and unnecessarily argumentative. Please step away from the internet for a while and consider if you're trying to accomplish a discussion, debate or a debasing. I know better than to engage in this further.

LOL Nah, you are the one who made a claim you can not back up.

I made no such claim (just pointing out size and weight differences between cameras)...geez if you like i could just add your M43 lens to my FF camera via an adapter and use clear zoom and digital zoom....The IQ would not be great but it is possible.

What did I say as fact that was incorrect?   IE not opinion....We can disagree on opinions but facts? 

Yes or no, is the G100 comparatively a fair bit bigger and heavier than the GM1 and GM5?

Yes or no, did Panasonic themselves say it is not a successor to any camera?

No matter, you buy the camera, i will not, how about we leave it at that (sure would like that reply on bitrates though).

Internal ND, yes please!   

As technology ages, prices come down once costs have been paid for but equally as markets shrink, prices go up per unit all things being equal.

Also as time between product models GENERALLY shrinks prices have to go up too since there is less time for a company to make a profit on each model. (funny though since the time between A7s cameras has not shrunk).

I expect this will be a nice camera but expensive.

IF (hopefully) this and the coming Canon are closely competitive, that will keep the price down for both a little.

If one is clearly better than the other, the loser will get cheaper I would think.

39 minutes ago, DAEMANO said:

We all know Sony has makes some absolutely tiny FF cameras and leads in this department (even if those bodies are ergonomically challenged.)

We all also know that crop sensor ILCs size advantage has always been at the telephoto end. My 100-300 (200-600mm FOV equivalent) lens weighs 520g and is 74mm x 126mm. I can comfortably carry and shoot with this all day. Up one side of a mountain and down the back. Please post the dimensions of your FF 200-600mm telephoto lens.

Thanks. 

MY 24-720 Equivalent weighs 687 g WITH camera attached (Fuji superzoom), why?     NOT what I would compare either mine or yours and both not relevant here.

MY point was the G100 is nothing like a successor to the GM1 and GM5 since it is comparatively much larger and heavier (and since Panasonic themselves said it wasn't), what is YOUR point?

Oh and still waiting for those bitrates for the G100 too thanks! 

It is fine to say YOU like it and sure you are just as entitled as anyone else to your opinion but that does not mean that all those panning the camera are wrong does it?

It is SOLD as a vlogging camera and it largely fails for the majority of people commenting, it is NOT a successor to the GM1 and 5 for many people either (and not for Panasonic).

It has a couple of interesting features but it otherwise appears to me as an entry level camera made from the spare parts bin...some will like and want it but it is not what it is sold as.

30 minutes ago, heart0less said:

Prices going way, way up is a current trend in electronics, sadly.

With cameras, and a rapidly shrinking market I think that has to be expected.

I hope this is a huge success and maybe in ten years time i will be able to afford a 5th hand one (if I am still circling the sun by then).

33 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

What about it makes it a better travel camera than the GX85 or the GX9? Megapixels? Weight? C'mon. 

The G100: when 210 grams is just too heavy for you! Here's a camera that weighs less, costs more, and has fewer features!

Funny thing is the difference in weight between my FF camera and the G100 is LESS than the difference between the G100 and the GM1 or GM5  that he claims it succeeds.

A half decent M43 camera!

A 50-100 FF f2 zoom