John Matthews

Inspired by this post, I tried to make some flares with the Makinon. Some were shot at f/16 and others f/3.5 with an ND filter. I shot in v-log and corrected for exposure and add the official Panasonic LUT.

I have the AR mount version. It's a decent lens by my eye. My copy has a trashed front thread and the rubber missing from the zoom ring- neither are a problem for me. I've seen them in K-mount too, but I'm not sure if there any differences. The fact that it has been used to oblivion is a good sign to me- somebody loved this lens to use it that much. Judging from this video and the video he shot entirely on it, I'd say there aren't any differences. I also have a Pentax 35-105 f/3.5 constant that belonged to my father, but it's almost impossible to use. There's just so much gear noise and you have to go into a full-macro mode to get somewhat close. Here's a video describing it:

Good luck. Manufacturers changed coatings every time they went to the bathroom. They were always getting tweaked. Granted, they often had similar looks. You can find some very unique f/3.5 constant zooms that will do the job. Some of them are sharp and cheap with magnificent and crazy flares. Here are some that I found interesting. I have the Makinon zoom lens.

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.

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.

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.

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!

With Parsec, the key is efficient H.265 (HEVC) encoding and decoding. On my 2020 Intel MacBook Air, I’m seeing decode times around 9ms at its native resolution. On the other end, the M2 Mac Mini encodes the HEVC stream in about 8.5ms. Over Wi-Fi (on the Air), network latency hovers around 4ms. Altogether, that gives me a total latency just under 25ms—well below the 42ms frame time of 24fps video. In practice, it’s totally usable and, to my eyes, indistinguishable from working directly on an M2 MacBook Air. Most Intel Macs from 2017 onward support QuickSync, which provides solid hardware-accelerated decoding. The real game-changer, though, is the vastly improved encoding performance on Apple Silicon, which makes setups like this feel snappy and responsive. When using Ethernet—even at modest speeds—latency drops further (often below 1ms). Parsec can stream H.265 video with variable bitrates up to 50 Mbps, which is trivial for gigabit Ethernet. It also supports 10-bit 4:2:2 streams, though honestly, I can’t see a difference on my aging eyes—especially when using high-DPI iMac displays. For me, Parsec solves three major problems: Reviving modest hardware — especially for tasks like video editing. Enabling near-instant resource sharing — with Thunderbolt providing a pseudo-network connection up to 40Gbps between Mac Minis. Letting me work remotely — from the kitchen table, for instance, while the main setup runs in the basement. When you pair Parsec with BetterDisplay, the experience is nearly identical to working on the host machine—if not better. In my case, the iMac’s high-DPI Retina display actually gives me a superior viewing experience compared to using the M2 Mac Mini with a standard external monitor. Unless you're using an Apple Studio or Cinema Display, it’s hard to beat the visual quality of 4K, 4.5K, or 5K iMacs. Interestingly, the 2017 iMac Pro isn’t the best choice as a Parsec thin client. It lacks both QuickSync and the T2 chip, which hurts performance. If you're going this route, a standard 5K iMac (2017 or later) is a much better option.

I've been using the free version only. However, I did pay for BetterDisplay ($20)- for me, it's worth it and they did a hell of job that needs to be rewarded. I'll definitely have a look at this too. Thanks for that.

If macOS ever supported multiple simultaneous users, I’d happily run just one Mac Mini and use 3–4 iMacs around the house as thin clients for the whole family. I’m confident the performance would be more than sufficient—as long as no one is editing video at the same time! Unfortunately, that’s not the case. But there’s nothing stopping me from setting up several iMacs as thin clients, each connected to its own Mac Mini. By placing the Mac Minis next to each other and linking them via Thunderbolt, I could enable ultra-fast access to shared resources—effectively building a small, high-speed local computing cluster with shared storage and plenty of power.

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.

I'm putting this question out there to see if anyone else is doing something similar. I've been running Parsec over a modest 1Gbps home network, paired with BetterDisplay to ensure proper 4K+ 60fps signals are sent to my iMacs—while editing 6K video on very modest hardware. For those unfamiliar, Parsec is low-latency remote desktop software. With BetterDisplay, I can match the resolution to the native Retina display of my iMac, allowing me to work from two different locations in my home without needing multiple high-end machines—or a 10Gbps network. The end result? It feels like I'm using an Apple M2 Mac Mini directly on a 2019 4K iMac. Honestly, I can barely tell the difference. I’d estimate the latency is under 25ms with this setup. Now I’m curious—has anyone tried this off-site? I imagine cross-continent setups would suffer from latency, but within the same continent, it seems like remote editing could be entirely feasible. It sure beats lugging around terabytes of footage. For me, this setup has breathed new life into an older machine. I’m even considering picking up another iMac—maybe a 5K model from 2017 or later. With H.265 decoding not being too demanding and the M2 or M4 Mac Mini handling encoding with ease, it seems like a highly effective and budget-friendly workflow.

EH FILMS gave an interesting take on the GH7:

For what it's worth, so far, I have to say that my experience has been very positive. I've bought lenses and cameras without hiccups. I've sold about 5000 euros of gear to them and most of the time they upped my initial quote. A key part of that process is they don't report the amounts they pay me to the French government either as it must be some loophole, unlike when you sell on leboncoin.fr. The process is a little slow, but I don't have the same headaches about wondering if I'm going to get paid or scammed. If they don't accept my condition for an item, they just send it back to me. I'm happy.

The human eye isn't going to get any major upgrades last time I heard. It's the one constant from the early days of image creation to now. The crazy thing about the upgrades is that many cameras being sold have less than 5000 actuation.

I have so much great footage I've taken with the gx80- the one that was used in that gx85 thread started way back when (and briefly became the most popular thread on EOSHD ever). Every camera I've used since (there have been many of all shapes and sizes) was either bigger, lacking features, or didn't have add significant improvements over it. In retrospect, I probably should have stuck with it and I would have saved a bundle and paid off my house that much quicker. Just last night, I was live streaming via HDMI with my S9 (not recording) and the camera over-heated mid-session (about a hour in), something my M43 cameras NEVER did. Granted, I don't think the S9 is made for what I was doing with it in a VERY hot attic (~35C), but still I wasn't even recording and I had a dummy battery. I guess the S5ii will now need to be doing that job and I'll set up my GH2 as a backup (just in case it happens again).

Good point!

That is VERY clear! Even in terms of photography, it's not that bad even for studio work if you use continuous lighting (which I now do). For outside stuff, you'll need a good reflector. On another note, the S9 can also be fitted with the new Sigma 17-40 f/1.8, which would perform like a M43 camera with a 25-60 f/1.2.

I've had the E-M5ii and E-M5iii. I've also had the E-M1ii, E-P7 and E-PL9. All of them had decent images in 4k. The E-M5iii and E-M1ii were definitely a step up when you turned on its picture mode (I forget the exact term). Shooting in 4k in the other normal modes wasn't bad, but a little "soft" for extreme detail. The major problem I had with the E-M5ii was absolutely horrendous moiré issues. For AF, both the E-P7 and E-PL9 did way better continuous AF in video than Panasonic contrast detect. The OM5 series could be so good if they could just put a little better processing in it and 10-bit. The beige looks like puke. Maybe it would be stealthy for a safari or desert situation. Also, OM System is thinking they can way more for this camera, but they will soon realise the contrary. It costs 1299 euros and 200 cheaper in dollars. I get the feeling OM System is asking the europeans to pay those effing tariffs for the Americans rather than asking the Americans to pay. The price gap is too much, especially since the dollar has been in a rather large decline since January 2025.

Sadly the new OM5ii isn't offering any real video upgrades. The E-M5iii remains the smallest M43 camera with PDAF at a decent used price until Panasonic pulls their head out of their rear-end.

Out of curiosity, how much is that combo going for where you live? I'm always looking for it, but it often seems a bit pricy for me. In France, it can be found for about 350 euros.

This is correct. Use a variable neutral density filter to adjust the exposure. If you REALLY want auto ISO, you need to also accept shooting in 30fps because this is only achievable in 4K photo mode.

None of those lenses have apertures to control via the lens. They have focus rings, unlike the 12-32. With the 12-32, put the camera into manual focus mode and there will be a [AF] button in the bottom right corner. Tap it and the lens will focus on that spot- this is your friend. You can also just tap where you want to focus and it will also focus on the object. All of this can happen in MF mode and without any physical focus ring on the lens... if that makes sense.

I had that camera for about 1 month and then sent it back to Amazon because the GX80 came out at the same time. Still, I recorded some great moments on it. One of the videos is so precious that I have it on my desktop at all times.

Just a note for @Andrew Reid: that's Richard Wong, not Robin Wong... I know, both review M43 cameras.