BTM_Pix

If I was Blackmagic, I’d skip the L mount and be beating a path to Nikon’s door to use the Z mount.
Natively, you can get fast Z primes up to 800mm so there is a much broader range there whereas L mount tops out at 135mm but it’s the adaptability where it scores.
Adapters for EF with autofocus, E mount with autofocus, even any manual focus lens with M mount and deeper mount can have autofocus too and even PL mount with integral variable ND filter.
Last but by no means least F mount with full autofocus, something which no other mount can offer.
Between these adapters a customer for this speculated BM camera could use pretty much any lens they’ve acquired over the years with full autofocus. Minus X mount and of course L mount itself but weirdly with the MFT to E mount you can even use those lenses too.
Z mount is hands down the most versatile mount around* with the added bonus of BM not having to deal with Leica who, let’s not forget, wouldn’t do firmware to make their cameras compatible with an adapter from one of the actual members of the alliance. My MC-21 still isn’t and won’t ever be compatible with my Leica T or SL.
Nikon are unlikely to get into the true cinema camera market so there is less perceived challenge versus Panasonic who are very likely to want to do so with an L mount cinema offering in the near future.
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
*This amazing and comprehensive compatibility didn’t of course stop me somewhat hypocritically not buying into Z mount and spending all my money that I’d intended to use on increasing my L mount collection of lenses instead 🙂

I found the breaking point.
Fuji Instax Mini Evo.

I don't actually own one so will have to buy it when we get there.
A bit of a Pyrrhic vvictory then but in the battle of wills with your kids you'll take whatever win you can.

In response to the rise in video conferencing during COVID both Panasonic and Sony release bridge applications to allow a lot of their cameras to show up as webcams.
The Panasonic one will work with your GH5 but if you are buying something dedicated then it also works with their earwig exit aperture compliant G100 MFT camera which is a good value nowadays.
https://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/global/cs/soft/download/lumix_webcam.html
Sony’s version is a bit more broad as it also includes the compact fixed lens cameras as well as a lot of earlier cameras that you can now pick up used at a good price including some FF options.
https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/app/webcam/en/download/
 
 
 

I don't think anyone is questioning the future of Panasonic though ?
It is where they are at and/or heading within this specific format that is under discussion as they are in rude health within the FF market.
Again, the camera (which as I've said umpteen times looks very good) and the form/format are very different things.
The idea of a compact system that offers the "optimal balance of high image quality, compactness and lightweight in cameras with interchangeable lenses" to quote the actual MFT organisation itself is surely challenged when it becomes the same size as a full frame system from the same manufacturer.
We need to examine the word 'dead' in the context of what it actually means to a camera system.
It isn't 'dead' as in the absolute discontinuation of all MFT products.
Which means it isn't yet 'dead' in terms of the stated ethos of it as a format by the MFT organisation as, if nothing else, BMD have just released a camera that actually fits within those aims. We also don't know whether Panasonic might also have a camera up their sleeves (or in their pocket) that will more closely align with that ethos.
I'd say that a more appropriate word, as it currently stands, would more likely be 'moribund'.
In a hippier time, it might be described as the 'scene' being 'dead' (man).
Indicating that what it was is not currently what it is.
But what it is might well work for many people so thats all fine too.
I was using it to provide some light relief to this thread 🙂
And to show my own innate hypocrisy and how you can't really rely on the meanderings of a random old fella on the internet.
 
I emphatically agree with both of you that the notion of all MFT cameras having to be small is both a nonsense and ludicrous.
Which is why I haven't actually stated that.
Equally, the notion that all MFT cameras having to be the same size as a FF camera is also both a nonsense and ludicrous.
There is room for both.
Its just that Panasonic haven't released one for three years which was the ill fated (but actually not without its merits) G100.

With the 12-32m kit lens it was around £600 before it was discontinued and it really did fit with the ethos of MFT as we originally understood it and how the MFT organisation still describe it.
It showed that when motivated by hatred (Sony's dominance of the vlogging market) that Panasonic could still do it despite the intervening four years prior to that (the G80 launch) they had been making ever bigger bodies.
Time marches on, of course, and things change so if the price that has to be paid now (physically and literally) to move the story along from the G80 (which unlike the G100 had IBIS) in terms of video spec then so be it.
Of course, Panasonic are not the only MFT player in town so maybe Olympus will offer that alternative.
Yes, the extra reach of the 100-400 on MFT would need the Sigma 150-600 to equal on FF L mount which results in a significant size disadvantage.
This is an example where it makes sense both as a format in general anyway but also as a camera itself, if the price to pay for that performance has to be that form factor.
Thus far, it appears that it must because there is no alternative with that spec.
Maybe I will pre-order one after all 😂

Stop making me want to buy stuff.
My family will be planning an intervention at this rate.

I wonder what you are more likely to find in most homes, an Ikea Billy bookcase or a Canon EF24-105mm f4?
Its a close call, I reckon.
They shifted so many of them in bundles with the 5DMK2 amongst other cameras because it was absolute bargain as an additional price standalone let alone versus buying a 24-70mm f2.8.
Do they do the same with the RF version ?
Because that would be the way forward to chuck those in with the camera as a bundle with the lens being at 50% of what it would cost extra which is exactly what Panasonic are doing with the S1 with their 24-105mm
As it stands, its the fat part of £1300 for the RF24-105mm which is just not appealing at all.
The Z and L mount both have the same problem to some extent but the third party range is what gives the other two the advantage not to mention E mount which just keeps motoring along with options everywhere.
Of course, there is the massive back catalogue of EF to adapt onto RF but, unlike Nikon with the F mount adapter, this is nothing unique as all the other mounts can do that too.
If I bought an RF camera, I definitely think that it wouldn't see a native RF lens for a very long time and thats probably been enough to keep me away so far as I can do that with everything else but also have affordable native glass too.
As it stands, the most flexible mount is Z mount (primarily due to the unique ability to have F mount with full AF) closely followed by the E mount.
E and L mount currently have the best options in affordable fast native lenses and Nikon are catching up.
The key to that, of course, is the 3rd party support most notably from Sigma.

I don't think anyone is questioning the future of Panasonic though ?
It is where they are at and/or heading within this specific format that is under discussion as they are in rude health within the FF market.
Again, the camera (which as I've said umpteen times looks very good) and the form/format are very different things.
The idea of a compact system that offers the "optimal balance of high image quality, compactness and lightweight in cameras with interchangeable lenses" to quote the actual MFT organisation itself is surely challenged when it becomes the same size as a full frame system from the same manufacturer.
We need to examine the word 'dead' in the context of what it actually means to a camera system.
It isn't 'dead' as in the absolute discontinuation of all MFT products.
Which means it isn't yet 'dead' in terms of the stated ethos of it as a format by the MFT organisation as, if nothing else, BMD have just released a camera that actually fits within those aims. We also don't know whether Panasonic might also have a camera up their sleeves (or in their pocket) that will more closely align with that ethos.
I'd say that a more appropriate word, as it currently stands, would more likely be 'moribund'.
In a hippier time, it might be described as the 'scene' being 'dead' (man).
Indicating that what it was is not currently what it is.
But what it is might well work for many people so thats all fine too.
I was using it to provide some light relief to this thread 🙂
And to show my own innate hypocrisy and how you can't really rely on the meanderings of a random old fella on the internet.
 
I emphatically agree with both of you that the notion of all MFT cameras having to be small is both a nonsense and ludicrous.
Which is why I haven't actually stated that.
Equally, the notion that all MFT cameras having to be the same size as a FF camera is also both a nonsense and ludicrous.
There is room for both.
Its just that Panasonic haven't released one for three years which was the ill fated (but actually not without its merits) G100.

With the 12-32m kit lens it was around £600 before it was discontinued and it really did fit with the ethos of MFT as we originally understood it and how the MFT organisation still describe it.
It showed that when motivated by hatred (Sony's dominance of the vlogging market) that Panasonic could still do it despite the intervening four years prior to that (the G80 launch) they had been making ever bigger bodies.
Time marches on, of course, and things change so if the price that has to be paid now (physically and literally) to move the story along from the G80 (which unlike the G100 had IBIS) in terms of video spec then so be it.
Of course, Panasonic are not the only MFT player in town so maybe Olympus will offer that alternative.
Yes, the extra reach of the 100-400 on MFT would need the Sigma 150-600 to equal on FF L mount which results in a significant size disadvantage.
This is an example where it makes sense both as a format in general anyway but also as a camera itself, if the price to pay for that performance has to be that form factor.
Thus far, it appears that it must because there is no alternative with that spec.
Maybe I will pre-order one after all 😂

I don't think anyone is questioning the future of Panasonic though ?
It is where they are at and/or heading within this specific format that is under discussion as they are in rude health within the FF market.
Again, the camera (which as I've said umpteen times looks very good) and the form/format are very different things.
The idea of a compact system that offers the "optimal balance of high image quality, compactness and lightweight in cameras with interchangeable lenses" to quote the actual MFT organisation itself is surely challenged when it becomes the same size as a full frame system from the same manufacturer.
We need to examine the word 'dead' in the context of what it actually means to a camera system.
It isn't 'dead' as in the absolute discontinuation of all MFT products.
Which means it isn't yet 'dead' in terms of the stated ethos of it as a format by the MFT organisation as, if nothing else, BMD have just released a camera that actually fits within those aims. We also don't know whether Panasonic might also have a camera up their sleeves (or in their pocket) that will more closely align with that ethos.
I'd say that a more appropriate word, as it currently stands, would more likely be 'moribund'.
In a hippier time, it might be described as the 'scene' being 'dead' (man).
Indicating that what it was is not currently what it is.
But what it is might well work for many people so thats all fine too.
I was using it to provide some light relief to this thread 🙂
And to show my own innate hypocrisy and how you can't really rely on the meanderings of a random old fella on the internet.
 
I emphatically agree with both of you that the notion of all MFT cameras having to be small is both a nonsense and ludicrous.
Which is why I haven't actually stated that.
Equally, the notion that all MFT cameras having to be the same size as a FF camera is also both a nonsense and ludicrous.
There is room for both.
Its just that Panasonic haven't released one for three years which was the ill fated (but actually not without its merits) G100.

With the 12-32m kit lens it was around £600 before it was discontinued and it really did fit with the ethos of MFT as we originally understood it and how the MFT organisation still describe it.
It showed that when motivated by hatred (Sony's dominance of the vlogging market) that Panasonic could still do it despite the intervening four years prior to that (the G80 launch) they had been making ever bigger bodies.
Time marches on, of course, and things change so if the price that has to be paid now (physically and literally) to move the story along from the G80 (which unlike the G100 had IBIS) in terms of video spec then so be it.
Of course, Panasonic are not the only MFT player in town so maybe Olympus will offer that alternative.
Yes, the extra reach of the 100-400 on MFT would need the Sigma 150-600 to equal on FF L mount which results in a significant size disadvantage.
This is an example where it makes sense both as a format in general anyway but also as a camera itself, if the price to pay for that performance has to be that form factor.
Thus far, it appears that it must because there is no alternative with that spec.
Maybe I will pre-order one after all 😂

Stop making me want to buy stuff.
My family will be planning an intervention at this rate.

Do we need 8K?
Find out why I have changed my mind here.
https://www.eoshd.com/news/the-great-8k-debate-why-i-have-changed-my-mind
And yes the Sigma Fp-L and Sony a1 have something to do with it 🙂

I agree and I think this idea is nonsense.
I use m43, Panasonic/Sony FF, and yet I preorderer the G9II.
So why the hell I bought this "big" and "expensive" m43 camera ?
There are a few reasons :
- Neither my A7IV or S5II can give me the fantastic stabilization of the G9II with "relatively small" telephoto and super telephoto lenses.
- Neither of these FF cameras have an acceptable rolling shutter or 60fps Open Gate/120fps 4K. Yes, the A7SIII has good rolling shutter and it has 4K 120fps, but there are always trade-off (much more expensive, low MP, no crop mode,worse details in 4K 120fps).
- While they are a lot of really excellent lenses of the FE mount and a few on the L mount, m43 has a lot of jewels as well. 
I can't see me stopping using some of my Panasonic Leica or my Oly Pro lenses. Some are irremplacable like the 100-400mm PL, some are outstanding to the point that even comparable FF lenses are no match, like the two f1.7 Panasonic zooms (contrast and colors are wonderful). 
I also tried to replace my 12-32mm, 12-35mm and 35-100mm with some FF lenses on my S5II and my A7IV, I can't. There are some options for Sony to replace the 12-35mm but they are not compelling for me (weight, price or features associated with the camera).
- This is subjective but I love the colors from the GH6 and I expect the colors from the G9II to be almost the same. I don't like the colors of the S5II as much, even less the colors of the A7IV.
So at the end of the day, there is no perfect camera and system, but they have strengths and weaknesses.
No, we can't get the low light performance of the S5II on the G9II. No, we can't get the FF look at some focal lenghts (like the 50mm GM f1.2) with our m43 cameras and lenses. 
But as pointed out above, m43 gives a lot of advantage as well. And if we should use m43 only with small cameras, we could not get everything this system can offer with the G9II.

The size of the arsehole when said earwig has been created by Panasonic's MFT design team.

The size of the arsehole when said earwig has been created by Panasonic's MFT design team.

Anyway, I've pre-ordered one.

Not sure why they would get into a market where everyone and his dog seems to be convinced that their current products will render that market obsolete to all but a dwindling niche of people.
It would be like Tesla making a petrol driven car.
Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, Leica and RED have all tried to make phone based cameras to reach a prosumer/pro market of film makers and photographers.
It never ends well.
In the case of RED, it was up there with the ET cartridges in the landfill episode in terms of "lets forget that ever happened"  failure.
I don't even think that Apple are that arsed about selling the software for creators anymore as long as everyone is using their hardware to run everyone else's apps.
Whatever profit they were making on FCPX that they now lose to Resolve they can easily recoup with the price gouging on RAM etc.
Apple are currently sat on a cash pile of $165 Billion.
Set against the entire worldwide market for cameras this year of $5 Billion.
When you can release incremental updates of your products every year and still have people worshipping at your feet at the product launches, I'm not sure there is much motivation there to get a piece of a market that - despite our obsession with it - is actually only comparable to, for example, the sewing machine market.
 

I wonder what you are more likely to find in most homes, an Ikea Billy bookcase or a Canon EF24-105mm f4?
Its a close call, I reckon.
They shifted so many of them in bundles with the 5DMK2 amongst other cameras because it was absolute bargain as an additional price standalone let alone versus buying a 24-70mm f2.8.
Do they do the same with the RF version ?
Because that would be the way forward to chuck those in with the camera as a bundle with the lens being at 50% of what it would cost extra which is exactly what Panasonic are doing with the S1 with their 24-105mm
As it stands, its the fat part of £1300 for the RF24-105mm which is just not appealing at all.
The Z and L mount both have the same problem to some extent but the third party range is what gives the other two the advantage not to mention E mount which just keeps motoring along with options everywhere.
Of course, there is the massive back catalogue of EF to adapt onto RF but, unlike Nikon with the F mount adapter, this is nothing unique as all the other mounts can do that too.
If I bought an RF camera, I definitely think that it wouldn't see a native RF lens for a very long time and thats probably been enough to keep me away so far as I can do that with everything else but also have affordable native glass too.
As it stands, the most flexible mount is Z mount (primarily due to the unique ability to have F mount with full AF) closely followed by the E mount.
E and L mount currently have the best options in affordable fast native lenses and Nikon are catching up.
The key to that, of course, is the 3rd party support most notably from Sigma.

The size of the arsehole when said earwig has been created by Panasonic's MFT design team.

Anyway, I've pre-ordered one.

Anyway, I've pre-ordered one.

I've PM'd you 🙂

Anyway, I've pre-ordered one.

I have and use the g9mki a decent amount and don't mind the body size as the lenses are still all so small, especially compared to their FF equivalents.
The g9, like most m43 cameras, really got attractive after a few firmware updates and price drops. It's so nice. I still have and love some smaller m43 cameras (gx85, bmpc OG, Z Cam E1) but when I'm doing a video gig I typically will use the g9. It's been wonderful to own and I bought it for $1000 USD new a few years ago. 

I'm currently still pretty tempted by the gh6 at $1300, but will probably hold off for a bit to see what they do. 

I love what m43s offers and personally don't mind if the top of the line bodies are a a bit chunky. The platform is still wonderful with the lenses they already have out. 

I do agree that I hope we see some more compact bodies with the new sensor and now PDAF soon though, but I don't mind the g9ii using the s5ii body.

I wonder what you are more likely to find in most homes, an Ikea Billy bookcase or a Canon EF24-105mm f4?
Its a close call, I reckon.
They shifted so many of them in bundles with the 5DMK2 amongst other cameras because it was absolute bargain as an additional price standalone let alone versus buying a 24-70mm f2.8.
Do they do the same with the RF version ?
Because that would be the way forward to chuck those in with the camera as a bundle with the lens being at 50% of what it would cost extra which is exactly what Panasonic are doing with the S1 with their 24-105mm
As it stands, its the fat part of £1300 for the RF24-105mm which is just not appealing at all.
The Z and L mount both have the same problem to some extent but the third party range is what gives the other two the advantage not to mention E mount which just keeps motoring along with options everywhere.
Of course, there is the massive back catalogue of EF to adapt onto RF but, unlike Nikon with the F mount adapter, this is nothing unique as all the other mounts can do that too.
If I bought an RF camera, I definitely think that it wouldn't see a native RF lens for a very long time and thats probably been enough to keep me away so far as I can do that with everything else but also have affordable native glass too.
As it stands, the most flexible mount is Z mount (primarily due to the unique ability to have F mount with full AF) closely followed by the E mount.
E and L mount currently have the best options in affordable fast native lenses and Nikon are catching up.
The key to that, of course, is the 3rd party support most notably from Sigma.

I think the G9 flew under a lot of people's radar on the video side as they didn't really care about it because it was all about the GH5 at that time.
The GH5 though did get the same "not keen on the direction of travel for MFT size wise" from many people but it got away with it because of the video specs so everyone was prepared to accept it.
The issue now though is not necessarily just that the G9Mkii has the video specs that have aroused interest so its under the microscope (or not actually considering the size of it) a lot more but that what has changed from 2017 when the original G9 was launched.
At that time, there was no FF camera from Panasonic.
Or indeed an APS-C one.
So if you wanted to get their flagship camera then it was what it was and you had no choice.
In that respect, the increased size was actually something that helped them as in "it is arguably the best MFT camera around, therefore its obvious that it is this big" etc.
However, two years later, they did have a FF camera and that was even bigger which actually preserved that "tope of the range must be bigger" conceit for both cameras and still made it appear the MFT compact system ethos was in play when looking at them in comparison.

That was all well and good until the S5 came along because then the whole compact system alternative fell apart because it was actually bigger than the full frame camera.

With the Mark2 versions of the G9 and S5, they are now identical of course so, for me, the fact that the G9Mk2 is fractionally smaller than the G9 is moot because as soon as the S5 came out then the G9 was too big anyway.
In my view, it got away with it because there was no FF camera from Panasonic at the time and then when one did show up two years later, it actually helped the perception of the G9 because it was also somewhat on the chunky side.
As demonstrated by the S5/S5ii.
Irrespective of the existence of their full frame cameras, I'd still say the G9 (as I said even from the GH3 onwards) was pulling MFT into the wrong direction for me compared to what they had been doing even in DSLR shapes.

(NB before the "ah but the top panel display" comments start its worth remembering that the G9MK2 doesn't have one now either)
An optimist would say that at least they've marginally cut the size of the G9MK2 from the MK1 and that is a sign of progress back towards the compact system ethos but its the things that have happened around it during those six years that effectively make it an increase in real terms.
So, I'll say it again that this is a fine camera but ultimately the problem with it is that the S5ii exists.
Panasonic really finding their way with their FF cameras has coincided almost in lock step with them losing their way with MFT cameras.
 

I wonder what you are more likely to find in most homes, an Ikea Billy bookcase or a Canon EF24-105mm f4?
Its a close call, I reckon.
They shifted so many of them in bundles with the 5DMK2 amongst other cameras because it was absolute bargain as an additional price standalone let alone versus buying a 24-70mm f2.8.
Do they do the same with the RF version ?
Because that would be the way forward to chuck those in with the camera as a bundle with the lens being at 50% of what it would cost extra which is exactly what Panasonic are doing with the S1 with their 24-105mm
As it stands, its the fat part of £1300 for the RF24-105mm which is just not appealing at all.
The Z and L mount both have the same problem to some extent but the third party range is what gives the other two the advantage not to mention E mount which just keeps motoring along with options everywhere.
Of course, there is the massive back catalogue of EF to adapt onto RF but, unlike Nikon with the F mount adapter, this is nothing unique as all the other mounts can do that too.
If I bought an RF camera, I definitely think that it wouldn't see a native RF lens for a very long time and thats probably been enough to keep me away so far as I can do that with everything else but also have affordable native glass too.
As it stands, the most flexible mount is Z mount (primarily due to the unique ability to have F mount with full AF) closely followed by the E mount.
E and L mount currently have the best options in affordable fast native lenses and Nikon are catching up.
The key to that, of course, is the 3rd party support most notably from Sigma.