EduPortas

Nice. Out of curiosity, could you unsharpen the included profiles in the GH2 in video mode?

That looks really good. The G7 has much nicer and warmer colors. For a doc-style scenario it could be a great option. Other than the obvious jello effect of the tortutre test it could stand up to any modern day camera. As we've said in this forum quite a lot: from about 2010-2018 Panny was a true disrupter in the videocamera world.

Photography has always been an expensive hobby. Since the SLR days there has been a clear mark of status associated with the best gear from the best brands. Wanting the best implied paying a lot more. Camera companies have clearly segmented and re-segmented the "intent" you mentioned. Want the best hybrid video-cam with RF lens? Better pony-up for the R1, R3, R5M2 or R5c. Want the speed demon? There's your R7. Want a slow full-framer but with some limitations for video, as in no IBIS? Here you go with the R8. A considerably better camera and videocamera but no as expensive as the R1 and upper tier? Ahh, we've got your R6M2. Every company out there does the exact same thing. So even if you are NOT looking for status, it's implied by your choice of gear. The only way to eschew the game is by going full retro. And I mean really retro for gear NOBODY wants to use and can't even be used with modern computers easily. I'm looking at you MiniDV, Hi8, and such.

Those RF lenses are obscenely expensive. At this point they have become "man jewelry".

Woa, there goes my interest in subaquatic photography. A coupe of years ago I checked the Nauticam prices for my 7DM2. The gear costed more than my camera and lens!

Oh you better believe it's coming, Canon would be foolhardy to leave a ton of cash on the table. As always, they'll let other manufacturers take the risk with their products and test if their is a market for it. Only then will they'll release a camera and gobble up the lion's share of it.

Well, the market is basically saturated. Since dealers are selling less units, each unit has to be sold a higher cost. That's it. Those insane prices clearly show this trend in a mature luxury market ( in the age of the cell phone a dedicated camera is a luxury). No surprise all camera manufacturers have gone the Fuji way: full "new-retro" models for Pentax, Fujifilm and Nikon. Only Canon and Sony have delayed the retro trend. So the only way for the camera market is backwards, not through, to quote a famous movie.

Original Fuji X100 and Nikon D200 For video it's almost useless, but for photos it shines with all its quirks and "personality traits". Nikon D200 is an absolute beast that has a ton o personality thanks to the CCD sensor. A truly great photo camera. No video function there. My modern cameras have zero personality (7DM2, R8, Z50) but work at such a high level that I just can't get rid of them even I want to. 7DM2 for quick focus and one of the best OVFs ever (soft video though); R8 is very very good for video, Z50 is not as good for video but I really like its compactness.

I have no idea why Panny chose to go the expensive route for their cameras. Up until the GH5 their products offered the biggest bang for the buck (GH5s was catastrophic bc it started this whole upward pricing trend). Now? Not so much. GH6-7 were considerable costs upfront for anyone, let alone indie filmmakers. Their FF lineup has been all over the place regarding prices. Why would anyone buy this new camera when the S5II and its different variations was released just some months ago? It makes NO sense whatsoever and makes us long for the GH-1-2-3-4 pricing and innovativeness. Every single one of the original GH cameras had some sort of innovation that differentiated it from the rest of the Canon-Nikon-Sony parade. All of that was lost with the move to FF. A true fall from grace.

Thanks, I see now.

No, he's talking about the 18-110mm F4 Power Zoom which is a very expensive item. Much more so than the "normal" F4 zoom of similar focal length. About 5x more expensive.

That's a US$3,500 lens on top of a camera that requires a bunch of add-ons to use properly. So even if it's an older model that's a US$4,500 expenditure at the very least. That's way way over my budget.

I gather 4K 4:2:2 10bit is something rare at this price point in the videocamera world. Impressive for such a tiny machine with an extremely long lens.

And it should, a full-frame MILC sensor is 20x as large LOL For a 1/2.5-type (inch) sensor it seems really nice, specially the 4K 200mbps codec

I will. Yes, the low-light issue can't be denied. I already have a bunch of lighting, so I'm not too worried about that. These new 1 inchers do seem quite nice and just as in photography the ISO and noise algorithms have advanced in the videocamera world. There are workarounds for bokeh, as you say. When I used those old Mini DV cams we managed to produce some nice images by playing with length of the zoom and judicious placement of our subjects. I 100% agree with you that the video cam world has advanced at a snail's pace compared to the photo world. Advancements have been few and far between. Curiously enough, Panasonic really did innovate with the DVX200 but the competition from the DSLR world and the new MILC challengers proved too fierce. Heck, even their own internal competition was brutal with the GF7, GX80, G9, FZ-2000, GH5, GH5 and GH5s coming around near the launch of the DVX200. Those guys in Japan were on a roll back then. As Andrew has said, their photo demise in near. IMO their fatal flaw was launching their own L mount and trying to compete with much more well established players but with 1/100 of their marketing resources and distribution channels. They should have stuck with videocameras and, from time to time, integrate their innovations to the M43 line. Bleh. Right now they much interested selling batteries to Tesla and Toyota.