John Matthews

I own the original version of that 14-42mm kit lens, but I also own the 12-35mm f2.8 lens, and it's only larger at full extension by about the thickness of a lens filter and is slightly fatter, but it's also 1-2 stops faster, which matters on these single ISO MFT cameras if you're walking around at night.
In reviewing my footage from previous trips I concluded that in reasonably well lit exteriors (like outdoor shopping malls) my main iPhone 12 camera is fine (it's got similar noise to GX85/GH5 with a F2.8 lens) but the iPhone 12 wide rear camera has the noise performance of the GX85/GH5 with an F8 lens, and the footage was so noisy it was hard for me to use on my home video edit.  So if I'm going to potentially be in less-well-lit interiors or anywhere at night, I'd appreciate the F2.8, and with the GX85 you can always crop in post on a 1080p timeline to get the slight extra reach.
I haven't really had an issue with the internal audio of the GX85, but I mostly use the camera audio as ambience and have music over the top.  Of course now we have these AI tools in post it's easy enough to clean up a voice if someone says something I want to put in the final edit.  If you haven't seen them, they're absolutely stunning.
A mic input changes everything, of course, including radically altering the camera size and conspicuousness, unless you are running a lav to it, but even then, having even "a touch of the Borg" attracts attention.  The general public are very vigilant against assimilation - oddly even including those that never watched Star Trek. 
I definitely agree that the 14-140mm would make a great option.  I only do a few trips a year and so think carefully in preparation for them.  
My current thinking is this:
Full tourist mode is the GX85 and OG BM camera setup, and is where I don't care about weight and want the ultimate options:
GX85 + 14-140mm for walking-around during the day GX85 + 12-35mm for walking-around well-lit places at night GX85 + primes for less-well-lit places at night BM for high-DR situations where I have time to manually expose and shoot (lookouts at sunset, for example..  these are strangely frequent on my holidays 🙂 ) Equipment: GX85 + 14-140mm P2K or M2K with 12-35mm F2.8 Primes: 7.5mm F2, 14mm F2.5, 17mm F1.4, 58mm F2 with SB This all fits into a camera insert inside a generic backpack Stealth tourist mode is the GX85 and is where I want to be stealthy and shoot quickly:
GX85 + 14-140mm for walking-around during the day GX85 + 12-35mm for walking-around well-lit places at night This fits into a sling bag, which are now fashionable, how convenient! Non-tourist mode is the GX85 and 12-32mm zoom (and maybe the 14mm F2.5 if it'll get dark) slipped into a jacket pocket.  If I'm travelling this is what I would take if I was leaving the hotel but didn't want to take a bag.
I don't own the 14-140mm or 12-32mm lenses currently, but assuming my thinking doesn't change in the interim, I'll buy these in preparation for our next trip.
I ended up shooting a lot with the GX85 and 14mm F2.5 in South Korea (almost exactly a year ago) and got a lot of great shots with the combo, and I really liked the size even though I took a backpack almost everywhere due to being in full tourist mode.  I've shared some images from this combo before in other threads but happy to re-post if you haven't seen them.

If you're not so bothered about the lens length when the camera is off, I'd seriously consider the non-pancake 14-42mm 'Mk ii' kit lens (the H-FS1442A, in the 3rd photo). The change in length over the zoom range is only about 10mm, it's got proper zoom and focus rings, supports dual-IS (with FW 1.1 installed) and is cheap used.
Yes it's quite hard to beat the combination of size, performance and flexibility the GX85 (or GX9) offers. Main reason I bought a ZV-1 was to get a compact camera with better audio - versus the GX85 it has much better sound quality from the on-board mics plus a 3.5mm mic input.
But otherwise the GX85 is nicer to use, and paired with say the Pana 14-140mm becomes super-zoom travel cam, which is smaller than 1" sensor cams like the FZ1000/FZ2000/RX10. Which is the main reason I still own one...

I have flip flopped so many times over the last...well, 6-7 years at least, between the best camera I have on me, ie, my phone and any/everything else.
I always feel a little disappointed not so much with the end result, but the quality of the end result using the phone but even more, a little guilty as a full-time pro photographer, I am using such a thing in the first place.
At the same time, our annual photo books have suffered by not having an 'ECD' compact camera.
I was thinking/hoping that my recently acquired Nikon ZF might fulfil this role, but the reality is, it's too big, even with a small lens. It really is a decision to 'take a camera' whereas there is that 'magic' size which if you do not go above, removes the question and you just stick it in your pocket as you walk out the door because it actually does fit in your pocket.
I also appreciate the flexibility of a zoom, but prefer that purity of a fixed lens.
The X100 series are all too big for this IMO. I love them, but not pocketable at all other than a jacket and my definition of pocket is a jeans trouser/pants pocket, so it's out.
Had the Sony ZX1 and RX100v and both great, but just a little too 'fiddly'.
I keep circling back to the GR3x as I have done since it came out as the 'sweet spot' in everything really, ie, 'big' sensor in a tiny body at my most used focal length and one for the purpose I have the requirement for.
But not this year... Just bought the final piece of the puzzle (a lens) for my work needs and it's a pretty tight year financially with an extra large tax bill plus a re-roofing the house job which combined are sucking up every bit of excess cash. And then some.
So maybe next year. Or by then, my iPhone 13 Pro might need replacing and some of the latest, never mind future, multi-lens phones could sway me...

I took my GF3 around Europe and into the US and shot using only the kit lens and the 14/2.5, mostly on full-auto, and with RAW images I was basically never disappointed.  The only thing that I missed was the look of Canon colour science, so I bought a 700D after that and really liked the images from it, but the additional size would have made me question if I would take it travelling.
The best images I took were enabled almost exclusively because I was shooting fast, thinking creatively, and going mostly un-noticed - which are all direct results of having a small automatic camera.
When I was first learning video I was absolutely stunned by how fragile and, frankly, crap the video from mega-dollar prosumer cameras was in comparison to the RAW still images from an ultra-budget pocket camera.  If I was still shooting stills I would have on from discussing equipment probably a decade ago.

I think Pana versus Oly/OMDS lenses having zoom rings that operate in opposite directions is really annoying...
Anyway, here are pics of the Pana 12-32, 14-42 PZ, 14-42 kit and Oly 14-42 EZ on my GX80 (all with filters on the front), with the zoom set to give maximum lens length (which was max wide on the Pana and max tele on the Oly - minimum lens length was in the mid zoom range). Also the ZV-1 set to maximum lens length, and a GX80+Oly14-42 and ZV-1 side-by-side. Note the 10cm mark on the ruler is approx. aligned to the front of the body, so the all the lens lengths are between 55mm and 60mm i.e. around the same...
(The ZV-1 has a JJC filter adaptor stuck to the front of the lens tube - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07GWQ6CXL )

I've got the Pana 12-32, 14-42 (non-pancake) and 14-42 PZ lenses, plus the Oly 14-42 EZ (power zoom) lens. No LX10 (or GX800 anymore), but my ZV-1 might be an interesting size comparison.
I'll take some photos of the extended lenses on my GX80 with a ruler alongside.
Note that of the pancake lenses, only the Oly has a focus ring, but it doesn't have any OIS - swings and roundabouts...

Just window shopping for tiny cameras (tiny-er than the GX85) and realised I don't really care that much about the size of the camera with the lens turned off, I care about the size when I'm waving it around actually shooting footage.
Comparing the LX10 with GX850+12-32mm kit lens, I think the LX10 might be longer??
The zoom ratio is only 3.0 compared to 2.66 for the 12-32, so they're almost identical lenses too.
Obviously, it's smaller when closed:


BUT, the LX10 lens really really extends (at least for some of its zoom range)...

and (as far as I can tell) the 12-32 doesn't extend nearly as much?  These are the best images I could find of the lens extended:



Also, the 14-42 doesn't look much larger either:

Does anyone have all these bits and can give a more definite answer?
If the incognito factor is important then it might be that the GX850 and 12-32mm might be better.
In fact, the LX10 might not even have much of size advantage over the GX85 with the 12-32 lens, when both are fully extended...  I got a direct size comparison image and superimposed the best quality images of the two lenses extended that I could fine (the lens images are transparent so you can see the overlays - the size match is almost perfect on both).

Obviously lens extension isn't everything, but in use it's potentially a factor.  Members of the public are aware that the longer the lens the more zoomed it is, so anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea of being filmed from a distance might really notice such a thing.

I think you might be partly missing the point.
1) If Sony put a modern sensor in one of these things, it would have the same spec as a modern camera because it would BE a modern camera.  There are a shit-ton of smartphone sensors that have excellent specs that are in the right size range.
2) When compared to a modern mirrorless camera and a superzoom lens and a gimbal, it would be positively tiny by comparison.  
Also, camcorders often have completely internal mechanisms (zoom and focus) potentially making them much easier to weather-seal.  The benefits in terms of being less fragile in your bag etc might also be welcome.
Also, also, for amateur use, a camcorder looks FAAAAAAAAR less threatening in public than a MILC and large lens...  let alone when you add the gimbal.  Put an A6700 with superzoom on an RS3 or Crane and you may as well have activated a homing beacon for all private security, toxic law enforcement, Karen's, etc to come out of the woodwork and hassle you.  If you're holding something the shape of a camcorder, the fact that it's larger might even make you look less of a threat because buying a big camcorder might make you look a bit silly - the opposite look of a professional setup.

I'm confused...  you obviously don't want one, so why are you in this thread about camcorders arguing that no-one wants them?
I'm not interested in buying any cameras that exist right now, but I'm not sitting in all the threads arguing with people about them.

PS... order placed with cvp so we'll see how it works out!

These threads do tend to descend into either-or types debates. I have a recent iPhone and, yes, I do use this for video. I also have a range of Blackmagics for a number of different purposes. But I still feel that the AX53 possibly has a place. The zoom. The internal gimbal. The compact size and ease of use. And possibly even the "retro" vibe and "invisible amateur tool" aspects. Coupled with the fact that if I drop it or it falls off a mount... it really doesn't matter. I am thinking of it as a GoPro/Insta alternative...  yes, a niche, perhaps, but there will be a lot of people out there for whom a decent camcorder would definitely fill their niche. As @kye said - get a lot of different shots with an easy to use camera and focus on the edit.

I recently asked for book recommendations to learn about human vision and was given a link to a free PDF.
It is incredible.
I'm only a quarter of the way through, but I'm absolutely blown away.  The human vision system looks like it was designed by committee and then re-imagined by Dali and Picasso, while on drugs.  It is a wonder we can see anything at all!
Did you know that the rods and cones (which detect light) are BEHIND a bunch of nerves and nerve cells and blood vessels, so the light has to go through a bunch of crap before you even sense it?   
The book is actually a mix of how the human vision system works and also what we have done with the tech to try and align to it, so it's a nice blend of biology and tech.  It's also very readable and tries to be as non-technical as possible.  This is a rare find compared to other books that are hugely tech heavy.
Take the red pill with me...  download it here: https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/support/documents/colourbook/colourbook.php (download it by clicking on the box next to the file size).

I'll chime in with my usual advice about colour grading.
The simple fact is that colour grading has a much more significant role in getting great looking images than the camera does.  I'll also re-enforce the points above that what you point the camera at is more important than anything else.
When we look at something shot on ARRI or RED or the high end Sony cameras, the reason they look great are 70% the scene, 25% the colour grading and 5% the camera.  I know this is a bold statement, but I stand by it.
Colour grading is the elephant in the room of all online discussions about cameras.  Everyone is looking at sample videos and going "wow, this looks great - I want to get that look without doing any colour grading or work in post at all!" and it's just not true.
If you need more convincing, here are a few things to look at:
The BMPCC 4K can match the Alexa almost perfectly...   So, why don't all P4K videos look as good as Netflix shows?  It's not the camera! The image from the GX85 is more flexible in post than you think...  @John Matthews I haven't forgotten about doing a follow-up with skin-tones in it. Simple colour grading > Camera colour science...  I compare a few examples of the 709 version of some professional grade images with the final colour graded image, and it's pretty obvious that the 709 version looks quite plain - a lot like the images we get when us mere mortals shoot The best film-making advice I ever got was to do with colour grading, but it helped me improve my shooting, editing, sound design, etc etc, the whole lot. Here are a bunch of GX85 shots SOOC that I took in Korea last year..  this just goes to show you that not only is the GX85 a very capable camera, but that it's the subject that you put in front of it that really makes the difference.  Of course, colour grading will elevate these beyond that level. High-end TV shows and movies look nothing like the standard images out of a camera... In this thread I compare some standard images from ARRI with real images from TV shows and movies and it's pretty obvious that not only are the colours significantly changed, the real images aren't sharp and clean like the videos that camera YT seems to idolise.  The goal isn't technical purity, the goal is creativity, and this means taking your sharp and clean images and giving them some character.   I could go on (many will wholeheartedly agree on this!) but long story short...  the camera is a minor part of the journey that the image takes from finding / creating something cool to point it at, to all the work done in post.
Also, learn to edit.  Well edited bad-quality clips are better than boring high-quality images every time.

Yes, I saw a few videos regarding this. He's right- it's a fun camera and I wish Panasonic would update it. The best part of it is the flip-up screen. Unfortunately, the worst part about it is the moiré in 1080p and overheating in 4k at 5 minute or less. As a travel camera or B-cam, it's a great choice IMO.
What I find amazing is the fact that many of the newer small cameras cannot be kept in-stock; yet, we see nothing from Panasonic who IMO is the leader in know-how for this category of camera. I'm not sure if their heads are stuck in the sand or just bad forward thinking. In any case, it isn't good. Hope they turn it around soon.
 

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'm not sure if it was brought up before in this thread, but apparently Yaroslav got some new old stock of the Z Cam E1.

https://www.soltyscameras.com/product-page/z-cam-e1

I really didn't like mine at all when I had it (and I was so pleasantly surprised by the E2), but as far as I know, it is still the smallest 4K ILC camera ever produced.  If you do get, avoid the log profile.

Gary W bought the GX850 when this thread was going strong, and he's just posted his 2 month review with it.  He mostly takes stills so that's the focus of his review.
TDLR; he really likes it and finds that it has an X-factor that he can't explain that makes him really enjoy using it.  It's not going to replace his GX85, but it makes a great compliment to it.
 

Best of luck!
The ATEM models do seem to be great, especially considering the historic price of such things (which every review painstakingly explains to you at the start) but they do seem to be very "industry".  ie, the answer to every question is to build a TV station and hire an army of people to do everything manually in the same way it was done in the 1980s.  This is similar to when I ask a question to any pro who works in the studio system and their answer is to shoot my home videos how a studio shoots a feature film.
When I look at the ATEM device, I see a few buttons that do a single thing, and a few buttons that run some hard-coded macros.  Why there aren't buttons to run the user-defined macros until you buy the $1000 Extreme model is silly - the Mini has buttons I won't need, let alone the 500 buttons on the Extreme.  What you really need are a few buttons where you can store and then recall configurations, so you can have Config 1 with HDMI 1 (showing yourself), and Config 2 with custom PiP settings (showing your slides with you in PiP with custom location etc), etc, then you could swap back and forth without having to punch a bunch of buttons each time to re-create the settings while also looking professional in front of your audience.  The saving grace is that in the default setup you can swap from HDMI 1 (you) to HDM1 2 (the presentation) without looking, and then when you have to look down at the ATEM to find the stupid PiP button at least they can't see you fumbling around because you aren't currently visible.
It's typical BM though.  Like with the Speed Editor - the middle and largest section of the controller is for multi-cam only and can't be configured to do anything else.
Anyway, rant over.
Using an iPad to run the slides seems like an elegant solution.
I find that when you're presenting to a group, you need two main things:
To see what you're sharing to the group To see the people in the group For my day job I do this using MS Teams (the platform chosen by corporate) and having a triple monitor setup where I have the meeting on one screen and I share another screen, so I can just drag any window I want onto that monitor and it's shared.  I share a lot of different things like Word documents, Excel sheets, web content, as well as Powerpoint, etc.  Oddly, Powerpoint tries to be "smart" with Teams, and when you're in Teams and hit the Present button in Powerpoint they try to be clever and talk to each other but just screw everything up.
My wife is just getting setup and her business hasn't gone live yet, but she'll be using Powerpoint and Zoom with a USB webcam, which our early tests show is a similar situation with them trying to be clever but screwing it up.  I suspect the eventual setup will be a real camera and a laptop running Powerpoint going into the ATEM, then that plugged via USB into a second laptop that is running Zoom and controlling the call.  The goal is to be able to fit the whole setup in a suitcase for travel, including camera / tripod / switcher / lights / stands / diffusers / etc, so we can operate from anywhere.  The laptops would fly carry-on of course.

I use the ATEM mIni in a very simple way. Again, it's to limit the things that could go wrong, but it has been very reliable. I only use it to show my iPad screen (this can be very customizable). I just push the picture in picture button to "on" and there's my screen. I'm on the side of the screen so my students can still see me. There are macro features and tons of other things, but you cannot do simple things like play a media file (that's why I have the iPad). Also, a lot of stuff is simple too hard to get ready. On the iPad, it's a cake-walk. You could also use in combination with OBS or something. I have done this but find the iPad solution works better and it's more intuitive- again, no preparation provided I've prepared the lesson on the iPad in the first place. My goal was to simple go to the live setup area, turn on a power strip or two and connect. I should say that I only do one-to-one classes, not groups and it further simplifies everything. The number of variable is astounding and I'm surprised I've had few problems (knock on wood). In April, I'll be getting fiber put in (not that I really need it), but it could be the biggest challenge that my system has faced- wish me luck.

I watched a bunch of ATEM Mini reviews yesterday and it looks like that would be a great setup to upgrade to once we're up and running.
A few minor questions, if you happen to know:
If you enable picture-in-picture and have it so that the setting persists between inputs, and then switch to input 1 (the source of the PiP) does it give you input 1 with a PiP of input 1?  or does it disable the PiP for that angle?  and if it does disable it, does it re-enable it when you swap to another angle? Does it delay the audio inputs to match the audio delay on the HDMI inputs? Did it get upgraded to have a multi-screen view on the HDMI out?  or is it still limited to either Program or Preview? Is there any way to run macros from the hardware device?  Having a custom PiP would be great but the PiP buttons erase any custom settings apparently. Unfortunately the best reviews were the ones done when it came out, and they are obviously only of the initial firmware.

I've done hundreds of hours now in English training. It's not my main gig, but it's good to do something a little different.
I use a GH2 with the Olympus 17mm f/1.8, a M2 MacMini, a Behringer mixer, a Atem Mini, a Audio-Technica AT 875 R, an iPad Pro 12.9", an Apple Pencil, 3 cheap lights with softboxes, and some decent headphones. I've tried many other things too, but so far, this works best for me. My cardinal rule is to have as much as possible with a cord and no batteries as to reduce my single point failures. My only exception is the Apple Pencil, but I plug it in whenever I'm done. The key for me is to have as little setup time as possible- just flip one or two switches and I'm up and ready to go.

This might be premature. Red has a bunch of newer raw/compression related patents which are "continuation" of the old patents or merge a few of the old patents in a new one. E.g., 10531098 (issued 2020), 11076164 (issued 2021), 11503294 (issued 2022), 11818351 (issued 2023), etc. I have no knowledge of the legal implications of these, but won't be surprised one bit if they actually extend the in-camera raw compression monopoly.

This is actually a great point. Maybe Nikon hopes to have more leverage in sensor negotiations with Sony or anyone else.

Countdown has been running since November 2019.

Patents expire after 20 years.
The basic "internal compressed RAW" patent expires in april 2028. Or the end of the same year, I'm not sure.
In any case "the patent" only has four years to go.
https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?msg=RED.com RAW patents expire&p0=840&ud=2&year=2028&month=4&day=11&hour=0&min=0&sec=0&fromtheme=party