John Matthews

What are you going to take on holiday this year, Kye?

There's something about a camera that doesn't "look serious". People tend not to notice them as much. I figure that the camcorder allows me to look like the old guy who couldn't afford a phone or something.

Yes, the XA50 looks like a great setup that don't really have to fuss too much with. The internal ND is a huge bonus. Camcorders, in general, are so easy to use. For the VX-981, I got a magnetic VND filter for it and just slap it on to get the shutter speeds down a little. It's certainly not a perfect camcorder (lack of any exposure tools, even no histogram), but it's small.

That camcorder is just so much fun and it has decent IBIS, something that the GX800 lacks. I'm going to take a mini tripod for it for that reason. To get out to 600mm equivalent, it would require the Olympus 75-300mm, which I also have. The problem is that it's the same weight as the VX-981 and it's near unusable on the GX800 unless on a tripod. The only thing that could "replace" the VX-981 is the 14-140mm or the 100-300mm due to their OIS. Also, I just love camcorders now because how versatile they are. I should also add that the audio on the GX80/85/800 are not great whereas the VX-981 has great audio.

So, I've been racking my brain trying to choose between taking my Panasonic S5ii and a couple of lenses or a combination kit of my trusty camcorder (Panasonic VX-981) and M43 camera (Panasonic GX800). I'll be going to the Seattle, WA area. I've decided to take the latter due to these primary reasons: Weight If I take just the Panasonic S5ii with the kit 20-60 lens and nothing else, it comes to 1090g. However, I'll need my ND filters, a strap, an extra battery, and cables, bringing the total to about 1500g. The GX800 with the kit lens is 450g (including an extra battery), and the VX-981 is roughly 500g (including an extra battery and accessories). This leaves room for an audio recorder and my Olympus 17mm f/1.8 for low-light photos. Concerns about theft Seattle is usually a very safe place. Still, the unexpected can happen. I spent roughly $2000 on the S5ii, whereas the GX800, VX981, and lenses were only $1000 (and used). Convenience for photos Hand anyone a camcorder, and they'll know what to do with it. The flip-up screen on the GX800 is perfect for selfies with family. Greater depth of field I want to see the environment much more than familiar sights from home. Not having a big-sensor camera means I need to be more careful about framing, but I get to see everything there. Versatility with more equivalent focal lengths The kit lens on the GX800 is a 12-32mm (24-64mm equivalent), and I also have a 0.79x wide-angle adapter for video that works well. The VX-981 has a 30-630mm integrated lens. The S5ii, even at pixel-to-pixel, won't reach anywhere near that. Enough said. It's for fun, not work (who cares so much about quality, yeah, "only" 4K) Without a doubt, the S5ii blows away the other combo in every way in terms of image quality from 20-60mm. I even reckon the proxy files are better than the 4K files on the VX-981, but somehow, I have more fun shooting with the VX-981 and the GX800. Maybe it's the challenge of it; I'm not sure, and I don't even understand it myself. Any thoughts? Is this a huge mistake?

That seems like a good setup. I'm sure you'll get some good content. Let us know: 1) how the content turned out; 2) how your arms and back felt after a full day of to doing it. Those are the two points where I think FF can fall short in terms of expectations. I still very much like the idea of M43 regarding these two points, granted the savings in terms of weight is not so great when comparing your E-M1ii and S5ii setups (a 285g difference and more reach with the Olympus).

I did the same, but in the opposite. I took a GH6 on holiday. Why? I care about the actual files I create. I don't want to look back on them and say "I wish I had taken my camera". I don't see that feeling going away anytime soon either. Sure, phones are getting better and in a pinch, why not? But when I can, I'll take the camera for its quality, better shooting experience and its authenticity (no AI crap going on that I have NO control over), not to mention I think I look like a douchebag when I use my phone.

Look no further than the music industry. Songs can now be made up on the fly in the style of X musician/group and according to some, they sound good enough. The same is done for stock photography and video. The real question is: will the masses pay for such material in the long term; or, will it be viewed as "it should be free because they stole it anyway"? If the past few years is an indicator, many people are looking for more authentic means to interpret reality: film cameras, adapted lenses, point and shoot digital cameras of old, camcorders from the early 2000s, etc. Also, people are still looking for ways of remembering family events. Sure, a photo can do the job, but I cannot imagine it'll ever really compare to the "authentic" photo or video (even if it's digital), never mind the experience of shooting a photo on a phone versus a real camera. My bet is: if there's not enough buyers for mirrorless and some companies close up shop, the prices for current digital and old stuff will skyrocket, not the opposite. Why? People don't want to interpret reality through AI; they want something more authentic. Stock up while you can!

I no longer shoot 4k or higher video for people, unless the whole point of the shot is detail in the skin and eyes. Sure, I could add a blur mask or something, but I'm quite happy with the 1080p resolution. For anything not people or wide shots, 4k makes more sense IMO.

I'll do it too.

Is anyone else finding that the best image from the S5ii or S9 is 1080p 422 for medium shots of people? I'm finding the 4k and 6k images have WAY to much detail in the face, requiring a gaussian blur. I have sharpness turned all the way down. I guess I could filter the crap out of the image, but I don't see the point of 4k and 6k for this.

I moved on years ago now. It was simple. They started their BS subscription crap and I moved on very quickly to DXO photolab for photos and Final cut x for video. Lightroom was getting so slow anyway. Now, I just work with folders with DXO (SSD required). IMO, it blows away Lightroom for many things, especially noise reduction. I've saved so much money by not going to the subscription service. I purchased DXO PL5 and 6 over the span of 5-6 years. I just "published" all of my edits and kept all of my raws.

Look no further than the GH8.

The e-m1x is now cheaper than the iii. Just food for thought. I've also heard the e-m1x has better C-AF than the iii, due to the dual processors?

Could you be more specific? Adapted lenses?

The Em-1x is one hell of a camera if you don't mind its size. It's an utter beast in all senses of the term. I've heard it has much better face detection even than the OM1 i in video. KEH has them for 700-800 euros, which is also a steal IMO for that beast.

If price were the main concern (and it probably shouldn't, value and needs are better to consider), I think the very best for the price are the GH5 and E-M1 ii, the later better for AF. I personally don't think 10bit vs. 8bit is really that big of a deal (depending on the usage).

Sorry, I didn't mean the E-m10 iii is better than the OM anything. I only meant it might be better than older non-PDAF bodies from Panasonic (GX850, GX85, etc.) because of the full sensor readout. Still, there are reasons to have the Panasonic bodies (better colors, handling, audio).

"People" complain about the bitrate because although the specs say it's 237mbps in C4K, it's a variable bitrate (but the UHD mode is a constant bitrate). On certain frames, it'll drop all the way down to 40mbps because it's "enough". Often you can't really see any impact of this. However, I've had issues with it. If you shoot a deep focus shot, handheld, high shutter with lots of super fine details, it'll look strange to my eye, but it's probably the shutter that screwed it up. You'll hit the limits of the 237mbps. Lock down the shot and throw on a ND, it'll look great and the bitrate won't go so high. In contrast, Panasonic's constant bitrate might break and there's nothing you can do, but in general it does look better when there's little movement in the seen (40mbps vs 100mbps). IMO, both the GH6 and GH7 are better for video because of their feature set and especially their in-camera tools (if you use them). If you're a simple histogram shooter with variable ND's and you you don't push grades, Olympus anything works fine. In many respects, the lower-end Olympus cameras(going back to E-m10 iii and E-pl9) are better. They have full-sensor readout and better continuous AF in video. The rest of the video specs are practically the same, including bitrate (both are constant).

Since you're a newbie, have you considered iMovie?

When you get it, I'd like to know what you think of the S9 when you get in hand.

What the flip is going on here? BTW, I have a question about lens caps. Which way do I turn them? I tried turning left but I accidentally hit myself in the face and chipped a tooth.

To really make the best of those old camcorders, I think there needs to be real AI solutions for moiré and aliasing. Topaz does a good job with aliasing, but there are still no solutions for moiré. Maybe someone knows of one? With my current favorite small camcorder (VX-981), I have yet to any real problems other than the usual too low of bitrate with a lot of movement and lack of detail due to noise (for a 4k image but passable for 1080p). As long as the sensor is saturated, it makes a nice, deep DOF image with its 7.5x crop (in 4k), even at f/1.8. I imagine that Panasonic had all kinds of defraction compensation going on though. Most importantly for me, anyone in the family can pick up the camera and shoot because it's just so easy.

Speaking of older cameras... I might have already posted this before, but it's still interesting IMO. On another note: I think part of the problem with shallow DOF is that you want to saturate the sensor- you often do that with shallow DOF. The trick is to saturate the sensor and still get the deep DOF to show more. So, you start adding lights and it's tricky as you also want it to appear somewhat natural. Lighting is always key (pun not intended).