ac6000cw

Re. S5 ii moire and aliasing tests, the test-chart videos here are pretty comprehensive - https://www.optyczne.pl/70.4-Inne_testy-Panasonic_Lumix_S5_II_-_test_trybu_filmowego_Jakość_obrazu.html For comparison, these are the GH6 tests - https://www.optyczne.pl/62.4-Inne_testy-Panasonic_Lumix_GH6_-_test_trybu_filmowego_Jakość_obrazu.html - and this is for the OM-1 - https://www.optyczne.pl/59.4-Inne_testy-OM_System_OM-1_-_test_trybu_filmowego_Jakość_obrazu.html Unfortunately they haven't tested the G9 ii yet... Yes - as far as I know, all mirrorless cameras with PDAF use some form of contrast detection to 'fine tune' focus after PDAF has got it close (and more so in low-light and with small apertures - I guess diffraction affects PDAF in that situation). Also I remember Olympus saying that C-AF in video (on their cameras with PDAF) uses a mixture of PDAF and CDAF. But in reality, I think with modern cameras the main C-AF issue is how they decide what to focus on (and then track it) - the 'Ai' part - rather than how they do the focusing.

Provided the camera can process all the pixels on the sensor to produce the final video stream i.e. no line-skipping or pixel-binning,, then yes, I think in general a higher density is better. It's quite noticeable that the Panasonic S cameras are prone to it (but the high-res S1R not so much), but their micro4/3 cameras are not - but how much of that is due to processing differences and how much to pixel density plus lens resolution I don't know. But if slow-mo is important to you, I guess the 4k @ 120p and FHD @ 240p on the G9ii also has to swing things in that direction?

That's one major reason I decided against an S5 ii - the others were the size & weight of long telephoto lenses and the APS-C crop in 4k50p/4k60p (I normally shoot everything in 50p, so it would effectively be an APS-C video camera for me). So sixth months ago I looked seriously at more upmarket APS-C cameras for video instead, but having played with an R7 and an XH2s I decided they felt too large and/or awkward in my hands (the Sony A6700 wasn't announced then, and the FX30 has no viewfinder so ruled out). Then the XS20 was announced and I pre-ordered it... but before deliveries started a used OM-1 turned up at a really good price so I bought it and cancelled the XS20 order. So in the end the fact that I already had micro4/3 lenses and the OM-1 just feels 'right' in my hands (and is weather sealed, with top-notch IBIS and a lovely 5.76M dot EVF) kept me in the micro4/3 world a while longer...

I assume that's really the main purpose (beyond being a marketing gimmick) of having a dedicated switch position - enabling a quick flip to B&W for composition purposes, especially if intending to generate some B&W pictures from the RAWs afterwards.

I didn't think you would, but I was surprised at how bad the Fuji XH2 was (even in IBIS + DIS mode) and how good the Canon R7 was, compared to the others.

There's an interesting IBIS comparison including the XH2, R7 and S5II and several micro4/3 cameras here:

I've PM'd you 🙂

I own the lens (bought used a few years ago, don't know how old it actually is). I haven't used it recently, but yes, from memory the power zooming is reasonably smooth but my copy is a little bit noisy (but quieter than the Pana and Oly pancake PZ lenses) - from comments I've seen, there seems to be some sample variation in noise levels. I can't remember what the focus breathing is like. Do the BM cameras apply the lens distortion and chromatic aberration corrections? It'll be a few days before I can do it, but I could put it on my OM-1 or G9 and upload a short test video if that would help you decide?

IIRC, around the time of the GH6 release (18 months ago), there was live stream/press discussion with some senior Panasonic people, where one of them basically said that including PDAF hardware on the sensor would have delayed the sensor development too much (for the GH6 timescale). So my take on it is the sensor in the G9ii is effectively the 'fully developed' version of it, and the GH6 has an intermediate version without the PDAF hardware capability. I think it would have been commercially crazy to not launch the GH6 with PDAF if they could have - they'd have sold more in the intervening months at higher street prices. We'll have to wait and see, but I think there just has to be a GH6ii or GH7 soon.

I've just watched/listened to the PetaPixel (Chris and Jordan) and Geeky Nerdy Techy YouTube reviews, and both of them reported that at room temperature anything below 4k120/4k100p mode recorded until the battery died (which I think for 4k60p was around 1h 20m - 1h 30m). 4k120p overheated after about 25-30 minutes. So pretty good I think. Interestingly Jordan said the G9ii might become his favourite everyday video camera - it would be a bit ironic if the G9ii turns out to be a serious GH6 killer, despite being supposedly aimed at stills shooters... Both reviews said the automatic (versus manual on the GH6) 'dynamic range boost' function works well, and also the IBIS is extremely good (as in 'best we've ever used').

One thing I am a bit surprised at is not upgrading the viewfinder - it's the same 3.68M dots resolution as it's predecessor, whereas the OM-1 has a (really nice to use) 5.76M dot panel. I also have to agree with dpReview's comment:

Initial review and specs on dpReview - https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dc-g9-ii-initial-review-the-g9-series-matures

Yes - most of the camera manuals I have say something like 'recording times may be reduced in high ambient temperatures'. I wonder if some of this is because the R5 situation bought the general issue to the attention of a lot more people (as it was discussed ad-nauseum at the time)? Consequentially influencers & reviewers now have it on their 'must test it and/or say something about it' list - and of course they tend to choose the most computationally demanding video modes to test overheating, rather than the modes that probably 95% of users might choose day-to-day. I assume it's just that making the camera smaller and lighter (combined with a long enough features list) probably sells more product than putting a fan in it (to make it more appealing to a minority of video-orientated customers). I know a reasonable number of people who have and use reasonably 'serious' cameras, but mention to them that I use mine a lot for video and the reaction is often almost 'what's video' or that they have no real interest in shooting it... I'm sure the design engineers could fix the thermal issues, but if that would make it noticeably larger and more expensive they probably get overruled by the product management & marketing side of the company (unless it's a hybrid camera that's very much aimed at video users, e.g. like the GHx, S5iix and S1H). Even the (original) G9 has a 10 minute 4k60p limit whereas it's very close relative the GH5 has much longer record times...

...Or even put IBIS and PDAF in a version of the G100... (but the GX80/GX9/LX100 are much better looking cameras from a style point-of-view). If Sony can sell small, expensive and thermally-compromised cameras I'm sure Panasonic could if they had the right product...

As the G9ii looks like it's using a version of the GH6 25Mp sensor with PDAF added, a GH6ii/GH7 is probably not far away... As an OM-1, G9 and GX80 owner, I'm not really interested in the G9ii, but a GX80/GX9/EM5/OM5 size camera with mic jack and the 25Mp PDAF sensor inside would be very interesting!

Now released: A7C ii - https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7c-ii-initial-review-not-so-small-improvements A7CR - https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7cr-initial-review-high-resolution-in-a-small-package Sony certainly seems keen on filling every niche they can with a camera...

If Premiere supports VST audio plugins, could you use a delay plugin to time-shift one of the audio clips to fix the phasing issue, instead of shifting it directly on the timeline? Another thought is that there are auto-align/auto-phasing VST plugins around, designed specifically to deal with multi-mic phasing issues in a multi-track mix e.g. like this one from Melda - https://www.meldaproduction.com/MAutoAlign (Note I've never used that particular plugin, but I use other Melda plugins so I happen to know it exists). Alternatively (but more work initially) could you fix the phasing issues as you do already, then export the fixed & mixed audio for the clip to a WAV file, then put it onto the timeline to replace the original audio for the clip (then group it back with the video)?

I've worn varifocals (every day) for longer than I can remember - at least 10 years. As MrSMW said, the first time you wear them it takes a few days - at least - to adapt to them (and some people don't like/can't adapt to them). Personally I really like them and wouldn't have anything else now. I always buy the varifocal lenses with the largest usable lens areas (near, mid, far) the optician offers - it makes a big difference to the usability. They are often the most expensive but for something I use all day, every day I think it's worth it. Much better to spend the money on the lenses than expensive fancy frames, IMHO. It's like buying pro-grade camera zoom lenses versus kit zooms - the performance is less compromised. Like MrSMW, I use the Specsavers chain in the UK - this is their guide to varifocals - https://www.specsavers.co.uk/glasses/glasses-lenses/varifocals (I use their 'Tailor-made' lenses) Note it's more critical for varifocal lenses to be positioned correctly in relation to the eye pupil than single-vision lenses, so make sure the optician adjusts the frames to suit you when you get them.

Yes, I usually do that just to get decent looking 1080p when it's played, irrespective of the original source material. In case anyone is interested, this is an example FFmpeg command line to process 4:3 PAL DV into 1440x1080p H.264 at 20Mbps using the Intel QSV encoder (command should be all on one line, input=PAL_DV.avi, output=PAL_DV_1080p.mp4): ffmpeg.exe -i PAL_DV.avi -vf estdif,scale=1440x1080:flags=lanczos+accurate_rnd+full_chroma_int+full_chroma_inp,unsharp -c:v h264_qsv -preset veryslow -b:v 20M -c:a aac -b:a 256k PAL_DV_1080p.mp4

Another thing with YouTube, if your source material is 25 or 50 fps, is that only 720p and higher playback resolutions support those frame rates, so to get a source-matching playback fps you have to upload at a minimum of 720p (but I'd suggest 1080p like Kye has). For PAL DV, I normally use FFmpeg to de-interlace (using 'estdif'), upscale, sharpen and encode to H264 1080p 50fps files before I edit it. Because (by today's standards) DV tends to be horribly noisy, you need to use a decent bitrate to keep the H264 1080p quality decent - otherwise the noise creates too many compression artefacts.

A6700 'Film mode' test now on optyczne.pl - https://www.optyczne.pl/79.1-Inne_testy-Sony_A6700_-_test_trybu_filmowego.html - with downloadable video samples 4k resolution test: Full HD resolution test:

I don't think that was realistic for a higher-end APS-C camera in the current market - I think it's being priced against the X-S20 and R7.

£1449 body-only in the UK (including 20% sales tax).

Of the Panasonic cameras I've owned: The 1080p on the G9 is superb (GH5 standard AFAIK), as is the 4k. MIx 1080p and 4k on a 4k timeline and it's not that obvious which is which unless you pixel-peep (and that's 28Mbps long-GOP 1080 50p versus 150Mps 4k 50p too!). The 1080p on the GX80/GX85 is a bit soft, the G80 is sharper but more prone to aliasing. Neither is in the same league as the G9 - but that's a rather larger and heavier camera, so there's swings and roundabouts and I really like the feel of the GX80 in the hand. Whereas the G80 just feels 'functional' and soul-less... (A bit off-topic, but about a week ago I succumbed to a used OM-1 at a very good price - not had a lot of time to test it, but the video quality seems a big step up from the E-M1 iii - the 1080p in particular, which I wasn't expecting - it looks generally much cleaner and more detailed. An OM-1 versus G9 1080p comparison using the same lens might be interesting...).

Having owned a mk ii then a mk iii (both bought used), I think the better AF for video and adjustable-strength video IBIS on the iii are worth the extra money. There is also better separation of settings between stills and video on the iii. Video quality is the same in both, as far as I can tell. And Olympus/OMDS certainly seem to know how to design and build pro-grade lenses and cameras - my (used) 12-40mm F2.8 Pro has paint worn away in places plus a damaged (but usable) filter thread, but works fine and has the smoothest zoom and focus rings I've ever used. I'm getting a bit tempted by the 12-100mm F4 Pro as a consequence...