John Matthews

Of those lenses listed above, I have and will continue to use 14mm f/2.5 or 12-32. If I want wider and IS, I use the 12-32 with the .79x wide-angle converter. For low light, I have the Olympus 17mm f/1.8. I've sold the the 20mm (as I thought it would never work well with PDAF, but I think I was wrong about the that. I also loved the Olympus 14-42 EZ for its lens cap accessory that opened when I turned it on and made it a true point and shoot, but again I sold it. Of those other lenses, I'm not that inspired to get them. In other news, it looks like we won't have another small Panasonic camera for the foreseeable future as the G100D has just been released. It has an updated EVF with OLED (which wasn't the problem with it, rather the OPTICS), but who knows as it might be fixed. It also has a USB-C which is more state-of-the-art. I'm on the fence about this camera and I'll wait for critical reviews. I'm fairly sure it still has the BS 1/500 mechanical shutter and max sync of 1/50. I think I'll just stick with the GX800 or get an OM-5 (which is light-years ahead of the G100D). I have to say Lumix is sneaky with this camera as I'm sure so many people will look at the OM-5 and say: "Crap, it has Micro USB", and then look at the G100D and say: "Perfect, it has USB-C". Never mind the fact the OM-5 has a WAY more accessible SD Card slot. If you want really small Lumix, it's a sad day because I was really hoping to get something with PDAF and GX85-ish features. OM-5 or E-M5 iii are still the best options. For small and light-weight, it the GX850 with its limitations or the E-P7. Can't say OMDS will win the sales, but they seem to clearly has the better lineup. I expect G100D's to be discounted in November 2024 and super cheap on the used market (with lenses). As I have a big camera/small camera setup, I want more contrast in the terms of size, but not features. Unfortunately, manufacturers continue to dump out one-size-fits-all cameras.

The only problem is that it takes crazy amounts of energy and time. The GM1 was great. I really liked its build quality and output. Personally, I just love the flip-up screen though. The GM1's 1080p was better than the GX850's 1080p (because of moiré); however, the it cannot compete with the GX850's native 4k, free from most faults and highly detailed.

You live in a wonderful place. Another great example of not blowing out the highlights. It almost always looks better. ...not an easy task on the GF3. I just realized I've been saying I have a GF3 and I don't- it's a GF5! 🤪 I have some some quirky Lomography lenses (set of 3) made for MFT- they cost me a whopping 20 euros and they're total crap, but that's not the point. They also come with some filters! I've been sick the past few days, but you're giving me desire to get out there.

That looks great! Their website actually lists it at "216.6g" including battery. Did you weigh yours? Does it have a physical shutter?

Make no mistake, the GX85 is superior in almost every way over the GX850, except for size and screen IMO. I shot the GX85 for almost 3 years exclusively. I often regret not having it. Also, if I had a GX85 today and I'm happy with the size and weight, there would be no real need to get a GX850. My GF3, that almost never gets any love, is slightly broken. It has some weird issue where it has bad digital banding. Amazingly, that doesn't happen in video mode. Oddly, this camera's strap system has been adapted to Panasonic's newest cameras (G9ii, S5ii, S5iix).

I haven't tried the G3 or G6, but I've heard the G6 has some of the best out of camera 1080p. The GM1 doesn't have the same moiré problems as the GX850 (at least not in the same scenarios/frequencies). Compared to the GM1, the GX800 feels like a toy, but it has better specs and is slightly more usable IMO. Compared to GM5 (never had it-too expensive), again, the GX800 has better specs and the flip-up LCD which is the achilles heal of the GM5, but I'd love to try it. Because Panasonic hasn't made anything new, the prices keep creeping up and there are fewer and fewer on the market. The GX800 will run you 140 euros when all is said and done where as the GM5 is double that and you'll never get 4k.

With a smaller size, there are some limitations. Depending on hand size and pocket size, your mileage may vary. Personally, I like not having to choose between EVF or LCD (I just put an anti-reflective screen protector to see a little better outside). A flip-up screen that moves so easily cannot be understated. Compared to a GH6, the GX850 is the antithesis with tons of limitations AND tons of decisions you DON'T have to make. Compared to a GX85, the GX800 is just a less featured, but again a few less decisions to make- throw it on a tripod and get the shot; not many usable codecs to choose from either. Put it this way, I had a GX880 (that I sold); I had the G100 (that I sold); I had a GX800 that I dropped; then, I bought another GX800. The GX800 is definitely more fiddly and it's not really designed to be an A-camera, but it works as a complementary camera, especially Lumix. Honestly, it blows away a GF3 (which I also have); in 2023, that's a crash-cam. Also, I love the look of the GX800 (even over the newer GX880).

*"disappeared" or "were gone"- I make too many stupid mistakes when I write because I don't read it again (until it's too late). I should send all my comments through ChatGPT before. "Correct my English: "*". That's what I do when I write in French now- works like a charm.

Yes. Exactly. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but when I grade (and I don't do much), I rarely see that much difference between 4k 8bit and 4k 10bit. Back in the day, I'd see moiré and banding in so much 8bit 1080p footage and it really made sense to shoot it in 10bit; however, it would seem that as soon as my footage went 4k, moiré and banding were disappeared. In the case of the GX850, it has super-sharp 1080p but usually ruined due to moiré- way more than my GH2 under the same circumstances. In any case, the 4k fixed it and made it more detailed.

Do you know of any Cameras the size of the GX85 that shoot with those specs? The OM5 shoots in C4k at 200mbps in a variable bitrate; so, it should be possible but it's not 10bit.

I really enjoyed the GX80 when I had it. It was, in my opinion, the absolute best value proposition Lumix has ever made in the given situation in 2016. Its output still looks great in 2023 (and beyond for that matter). In 2016, Lumix had some serious mojo with this camera and I was expecting great things. Unfortunately, the ONE thing they needed to do didn't become a reality until late 2023 in M43. Let's hope they get back on the right track. The ONE thing, right NOW, in 2023-2024 is to release a M43 camera that is small, PDAF, full-sensor readout camera. It's not a priority anymore, but retro-priority, meaning it should have already been done. If Olympus could do it in 2019 in a E-M5 iii at 414g (lighter than a GX80 and WAY better EVF + WEATHER-SEALED), my expectations are under 400g and 4k 60fps or better. I'd also be happy with a 270g update to the GX850 or LX10. I want PDAF, G100-style updated IBIS (which wasn't that bad) with full-sensor readout, manual video mode, better audio quality and better thermals (longer than 5 minute recording in 4k). Do not change the screen. Do not change the look. Don't care about 10 bit. Don't care about lack of anti-aliasing filter. Don't care about LOG. Don't care about 4k60.

If size and weight are of max importance, the GX850 is a good choice unless you need easy manual exposure in video; otherwise, I think the Olympus options are better than the GX85. The lightest one with great features would be the E-P7 at 337g. It has full-sensor readout (5.6k-ish downsampled) and better contrast-based AF, but no EVF. I've decided that I'd rather have less weight than a crappy EVF like on the G100 (atrocious) and GX85 (poor).

The GX800 keeps its WB settings with my method above.

The workflow I've found is either shoot in "4k Photo" at 30fps, which is fine most of the time. Everything will be manual in this mode when set to "M". Otherwise, do the following: Turn on flicker reduction to 1/50. Put it into 4k photo mode(you'll get the framing correct) with dial on Shutter priority (set it at 1/50). Adjust the exposure with exposure compensation. You can also use a grey card. Half-press the shutter button (this will be the ISO and aperture settings in "P Mode" if you hit the video record button). You can adjust a VND filter if necessary. Now, how do you get the camera to stop adjusting? Map a function button to AEL. This will lock in the exposure but only after you start recording. Your shutter, aperture, and ISO are now locked. Use manual focus with touch and lock. Personally, I've found that "4K Photo" mode works best and is the most usable, especially for 30fps if you need consistent exposure every time. Otherwise, set the desired fps and put it into "P Mode" and just not stress about it. It does a great job. Use the AEL to lock in the exposure so it doesn't change. Prior to the GX850, you couldn't use the AEL in video mode (exceptions?, maybe GF7).

I need to look, but I'd like to share some; maybe even dig some out from the digital dust in my archives. The challenge is sharing without showing too much of my personal life, which is what I usually film. Might have to go for some new stuff.

Perhaps a more telling image:

I'm still impressed with the GX850/GX800/GF9. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is still the smallest 4k DSLM setup. It weighs a whopping 269g and 55g for the 14mm f/2.5 lens. Not bad for January 2017. Still waiting for any sort of a replacement.

What I've learned about Apple Silicon is that RAM on MacOS doesn't behave like OSX, Linux or Windows. MacOS always wants to use the maximum amount of RAM, regardless how much you have at your disposal. If you have 64gb, it wants to use it with nothing left over. IMO, this is the correct way to deal with RAM, but it'll give you misleading results when you open Activity Monitor with MacOS appearing to have taken all/most of the RAM and your thinking you don't have enough. Performance is the key. As I stated before, I don't do serious editing. Most of my stuff is very simple in terms of timelines. I'd also recommend more RAM if you're a pro (making money with edits) or if you have any sort of virtual machine. It could also be said that SSD's have become so fast in recent years that swap memory needs to be rethought. At some point, SSD's will be so fast that RAM doesn't matter; we are near that point, especially on Apple.

I'm confused. I've got a M1 iMac with only 8, seems fine (granted, my timelines are that complicated); quite happy I save some cash. What software do you edit with and how are you concluding that it's RAM?

Many in France believe that too.

Sounds like the direction of France and many other governments. At least he still has all the digital rev content. He could put it up on thepiratebay or something without getting it taken down. After, just make a website or youtube video saying which one is which. It wouldn't be too much effort. I felt so sad after Drewnet either had much of his stuff taken down or took it down himself. It's part of history and it shouldn't happen. I love going to the digital archive for stuff, but it's not really for obscure things.

Saw this:

I don't understand why this is so hard for some to understand. Just watch the footage. The more frame per second, the more it looks like a Broadway show in a theater, not a movie like the ones most of us grew up with. Are there technical advantages to "seeing more data"? Yes, absolutely. Is that "better"? No, not always. Here's the rub: if a film takes you out of the story, it's bad. That's exactly what happens when I watch high frame rate stories. Is the inverse true? When watching 24p, does it take you out of the story? I'm rather certain it almost never does.

I didn't see Lord of the Rings The Hobbit because it was 48p because it makes the film look cheap and theatrical- not a fan. That cost them in my case.

The only reason I said that is because Panasonic seems to be recycling the S5 body (S5ii, S5iix, G9ii).