John Matthews

I think it would be great to reward the reviewers making a genuine effort to be clear in an ethics statement. Are they taking money? Were they flown to a camera release show? What were the expectations? What was paid for? If they gave a "bad" review, did the company offer money to take it down? When did they film the review? These are all things commonplace in the biz today according to Gerald Undone. How is it we're not hearing more talk about ethics then? I don't think anyone could say the answers to these questions wouldn't have an impact on a review. Yes, it could have a positive impact in other ways too. However, it seems the idea of what is "fake" has now been put into question. Black is now grey and so is white. We no longer have isolated lies- it's a firehose. No fact-checker can actually keep up. Ninety-nine percent of experts agree on something and the ONE expert who disagrees gets significant airtime due to sponsorship. We need something.

I'd like to know if people would be interested in a camera gear reviewer website? A website that would clearly state (maybe even index) the ethics of camera gear reviewers on the Internet. The intention would be to help people make purchases. Recently, I've seen ethics statements from camera gear reviewers (Gerald Undone and MKBHD, for example), but these statements are far and few between. There are a whole host of websites and youtube channels who have been overrun by various industries. My feeling is there are payoffs, under-the-table deals, and gross mis-statements in regard to camera gear. The results of the reviews can be clearly misguided and inaccurate. Is there a way to rectify the situation with a website to clearly layout and help reviewers and their audience understand how they've been influenced by camera gear companies (and the PR firms that help them) with regard to their "reviews"? Any feedback would be appreciated. Maybe this type of site already exists? Maybe it's a stupid ideas. BTW, I'm not saying I'd create the website or be involved in any way, shape or form.

They used to be in that "galaxy", not any more, even less with JIP. Sony sold 100% of their stock in Olympus. Just search for it. "Sorry". It looks like you lack key information to call out other people and try to make yourself like the all-knowing guru/historian of the camera industry. We're all idiots in comparison. BTW, Japanese companies still work in a system called "capitalism"- it's not some karate dojo where they fight for honor!

I'm not going to give up on M43... I'd rather roll with used bodies for the foreseeable future. Don't like Sony, Canon, Fujifilm for various reasons. If Panasonic is "dead", you might as well say Nikon is too. Come to think of it, what else do I want that used Olympus doesn't already offer? Now, they've got RAW (actually, I don't need that), great used bodies and tons of lenses on the market. I'm quite happy. Some will say they're behind, but I don't see in the final product or even usability.

Sony sold their stock in Olympus. Show proof of the contrary. I might not be a company insider like you, just using common sense. Better ways to spend my time than reading nerdy reports! Are you saying no amount of money from Panasonic to Sony would allow them to put PDAF in their cameras?

If what you say is true about Sony, I'd be inclined to believe the Panasonic/Olympus to Newco rumor we've just started. It's important to remember Sony digital cameras are not part of their sensor division. Also, your premise is that no amount of money could change this... that's not how capitalism works.

You're saying Canon owns their sensor tech, but simply pass it off to Sony (as Apple does Foxconn)? Seems reasonable. But here, we're talking about why Panasonic cannot/won't add PDAF technology. Do you have the answer?

This is what a popular photography website reported, who got these numbers elsewhere. No breakdown on "pro" vs "consumer", but that's a fairly blurry line these days. Also, I believe these numbers are worldwide (too high for 128m people in Japan?)... analysis only includes Japanese brands. Here’s how many mirrorless cameras the top brands shipped in 2019: Sony: 1.65 million Canon: 940,000 Fujifilm: 500,000 Olympus: 330,000 Nikon: 280,000 Others: 240,000

This will certainly be interesting over the next few months. Olympus had been out-selling Panasonic in 2019 by a fair margin. And really, I'd love to see a Panasonic Lumix/Olympus merger for MFT. I do find it curious that Panasonic made that PR statement. Could it be related to Olympus? There does seem to be some sort of timing issue. Maybe since the JIP/Olympus thing went through, now Panasonic is willing to also sell to JIP. This would combine tech from the two companies and consumers would potentially win. Then we might be going off the deep end of wishful thinking.

This might be wishful thinking, but you're right. Not much needs to be done for Olympus to kick ass in MFT (sorry, watching too much Cobra Kai!). I will say, about their menus, the super control panel is the best thing since sliced bread. Decent slow-mo and internal, editable, 10-bit should be a top priority. Finally, they simply need to tweak their face detection to work at a greater distance from the subject. With all the rest being the same, it would be a winner! Again, ain't nobody goin to buy that GH6 with PDAF IMO. There are just too many other options at the same price-point. I'd rather run a two-camera setup with Blackmagic 4k and a Sigma quatro, or something there the likes.

I'm going to say this is pure speculation and I don't think Panasonic deserves a "pass" on not including PDAF, other than (maybe) they didn't pay Sony for some sort of "right" to put phase detect points on the back of the sensor. And your theory wouldn't hold up if you consider Olympus who had PDAF in all modes. Sure, Olympus is a older player, but still. If there is truth to any to your theory, Sony sounds like a predatory monopoly. I wouldn't go to Sony Pictures to pitch your documentary idea.

Both of those companies have used Sony sensors and PDAF. As for Canon vs Sony AF, I think it depends.

Please explain to why Fuji, Nikon, Olympus and Canon can have PDAF on their Sony sensors but Panasonic cannot.

I've heard about DFD tech forever...incremental upgrades..."now it's a viable option"... blah...blah...blah...except it isn't PDAF and doesn't work nearly as well FOR VIDEO. For photography, it's great! I'll tell you this: if the GH6 doesn't have PDAF, we'll really know about the intentions of Panasonic to let go of MFT or not. It's THE spec that EVERYONE is going to care about, regardless how good they make DFD or repackage it and call it something else. No one is listening anymore IMO. Just pay the piper and pass it on to the customer.

If this is true, it's a sad state of affaires. Personally, I doubt they'd impose that sort of thing- a highly monopolistic move. And why would Sony say it's fine for Fuji, Nikon, and Canon? Would they actually be THAT scared of MFT? I think Panasonic has invested too much in their contrast system that they can't turn back. How much does it cost to the customer to put PDAF on a sensor anyway? 100 Euros? I'd pay it! What are they doing?

So, can I have some perspective? If pushing an image 100% is doing something crazy like changing all reds to greens (with clean results), 50% is adding 2 LUTs, 25% is adding 1 LUT and some color correction, 10% is color correction only, and 0% is out-of-camera results. Where is 8 bit, 10 bit, and RAW?

Can someone please explain why 10 bit is needed? What situations? The only major benefit I've seen is banding in LOG profiles in 1080p. On my Olympus, I never see it in 4k.Am I missing something?

@Andrew Reid I'm in complete agreement with this article. I've said it before, but Sigma, Olympus, Nikon, and even Pentax are in a unique position of being able to seriously undercut Canon, Sony, Panasonic, and maybe Fuji in terms of their pro cine camera lines. I seriously doubt Nikon (head in their keister) and Pentax (the forgotten one) would do anything as they are trying to put out fires on two fronts. However, Sigma and Olympus (JIP) could have real opportunity here to do damage to their competitors.

Looking back on the announcement for this firmware update, they say "RAW" video data". I assumed it was 10 bit... or is it 12 bit as Apple Prores RAW is 12 bit? I know regular Prores is 10 bit. I guess Olympus (non) LOG or flat profile anything wouldn't come into play because that would require interpretation of the processor where as RAW goes straight to the HDMI recording device. Clearly, I've never used one, but just trying to understand.

Yes. That's what I meant.

Don't be cynical unless you have good reason. Sure, JIP is an investment firm- this is what Olympus should do when it can't make it work (for whatever reason). Would you prefer those close it down? One more opportunity is a good thing, regardless. Speaking of opportunities, JIP has a serious one if they can get pro-video results from their PDAF cameras; this announcement is a step in the right direction, granted it's not from JIP officially yet. Also, JIP won't have a cinema line to protect like Canon, Sony, Panasonic, etc. Nikon has its head so far up its keister that will be dead or irrelevant IMO. I'll be a cheerleader for JIP until I they produce crap.

The 8 bit doesn't bug me, especially when I have to carry an external recorder to get the 10bit. However, I'm VERY curious to know how the E-M1 III will perform with its (non) log and flat profiles. Also, will JIP take it further? All speculation at this point. Please post video of the 10 bit when you get a chance!

Equivalency is such a silly topic, especially with mirrorless. Who actually walk around with a MFT, APS-C, or medium format camera and says: what would this look like on FF? That person is missing the point IMO. Is it really that hard to understand that 24mm f2 is a 24mm f2 regardless the size of the sensor or lens? The only question that comes into play is: does the image produced by the lens cover the sensor or not. This is easy to know because we now have mirrorless WYSIWYG.

The worst of this is that soon some will add on top of it "8k" as a "necessity." ... FF at all costs, never mind lens selection.

That would be cool, but those lenses will cost too much to produce IMO, judging from what has already been produced. Mind you, only 700 Euros for the Sigma 18-35... make it a native MFT mount, smaller, and it could be a winner at that price. But with the lenses like the Panasonic 10-25 at 1700 Euros, they can kiss the market goodbye... would rather zoom with my feet, have better optics, and save a lot with a prime or two. Still, super practical. I think if they make more lenses, they'll need to be small, fast primes at a low cost- bringing into question of why go FF or APS-C in the first place! Of course, they already have a ton of F1.7, F1.8 lenses; so, they'll need more F1-f1.4 lenses on the cheap. Not sure if that's even possible. Remember they're competing against the used market as well. Right now, you can get a 17, 25, 45 f1.8 for 500 Euros easily on the used market.