BTM_Pix

I've been doing a fair amount of editing on LumaFusion again recently since I got a new(er) iPad Pro.
I've been using it with the interface that I created (but never released) to enable it to be controlled wirelessly by a Contour Jog/Shuttle controller.
It turns the whole thing into more of a dedicated device and is far, far quicker to knock something together with, particularly as the new iPad blasts through content.
LumaFusion does have the depth to it now it do everything including correction, multi cam etc etc but its not sat there in your face going "tweak me, tweak me!".
It has the FCPX exporter plugin now if you want to send the whole thing to a FCPX for navel gazing/finishing but I haven't bought it as I haven't felt the need.
The issue I have with the MacBook for editing is the same one that I have with it for doing music.
It can do anything but I prefer the tactile immediacy of dedicated devices.
 

Subscription based versus €30 one off for LumaFusion seals it for me !
The mobile version of Resolve is worth a look and can also work with their SpeedEditor unit to get the same deal going that I've got with LumaFusion.
To be fair, I had to invent that one myself !
No, its lag free.
I've got Logic but being a gentleman of a certain age I prefer Cubase so I don't really use it.
However, being a gentleman of a very certain age, I've recently re-bought a totally hardware solution in the form of the Roland VS-1880.
I just much prefer the tactile hands on approach and for £100 its a lot cheaper than when I originally owned one 20 odd years ago !

I think its eminently feasible now.
The new iPhone seems capable enough, LumaFusion runs on the iPhone too (and you can cheat with an HDMI out for a big monitor) and all the audio and music apps are up to it.
Be a fitting tribute if you could find a way to do it on his behalf.

FYI for anyone who is looking to go Z mount and has manual MFT lenses then there are a bunch of different dumb MFT>Z adapters for around £30-50 such as this one.

I don't think you're following what he is saying. Go back and reread. 

Subscription based versus €30 one off for LumaFusion seals it for me !
The mobile version of Resolve is worth a look and can also work with their SpeedEditor unit to get the same deal going that I've got with LumaFusion.
To be fair, I had to invent that one myself !
No, its lag free.
I've got Logic but being a gentleman of a certain age I prefer Cubase so I don't really use it.
However, being a gentleman of a very certain age, I've recently re-bought a totally hardware solution in the form of the Roland VS-1880.
I just much prefer the tactile hands on approach and for £100 its a lot cheaper than when I originally owned one 20 odd years ago !

I think its eminently feasible now.
The new iPhone seems capable enough, LumaFusion runs on the iPhone too (and you can cheat with an HDMI out for a big monitor) and all the audio and music apps are up to it.
Be a fitting tribute if you could find a way to do it on his behalf.

FYI for anyone who is looking to go Z mount and has manual MFT lenses then there are a bunch of different dumb MFT>Z adapters for around £30-50 such as this one.

Leaving Bluetooth control out of it is a ridiculous decision.
There are of course different ways to control it and yes it is primarily for broadcast but they must know full well that this camera is going to find its way into a lot of filmmaker's hands (hence why they've included the recording features) and in particular onto a lot of gimbals.
Leaving out the option to control it without those other pieces of interfacing gear is real cripple hammer territory.
If its in there but just disabled then they really should enable it toot suite.
At least the original micro had the expansion port connector to enable controllers to be made for it.

What intrigues me is that the Z mount does offer the possibility to hoover up all of the customers who are disenfranchised with MFT but have a large lens collection that they want to keep using. Which I suspect even from gauging comments on here is a fair number of people.
JVC with the LS300 showed that you can have an APS-C sensor sat behind a fully electronic MFT mount and the flange distance difference is there to enable an adapter to Z mount.
The Z30 is not too far out of GX80 territory size wise and is actually smaller than something like a G7 so it would be nice little platform as a transitionary camera from MFT should such an adapter appear as people would have the option of dipping their toe in the Z lenses if they felt like it or just keeping going with their MFT ones.
Well, maybe not this version of the Z30 as it is only 8 bit internal.
 

I've been doing a fair amount of editing on LumaFusion again recently since I got a new(er) iPad Pro.
I've been using it with the interface that I created (but never released) to enable it to be controlled wirelessly by a Contour Jog/Shuttle controller.
It turns the whole thing into more of a dedicated device and is far, far quicker to knock something together with, particularly as the new iPad blasts through content.
LumaFusion does have the depth to it now it do everything including correction, multi cam etc etc but its not sat there in your face going "tweak me, tweak me!".
It has the FCPX exporter plugin now if you want to send the whole thing to a FCPX for navel gazing/finishing but I haven't bought it as I haven't felt the need.
The issue I have with the MacBook for editing is the same one that I have with it for doing music.
It can do anything but I prefer the tactile immediacy of dedicated devices.
 

This is the sort of thinking that logically should end up in the "fuck it I'll get a Z8" category.
I'm with you on transcoding but indeed increasingly the faff of any kind of NLE.
I'm quite interested in whether people felt they were more productive when they had hardware devices, as in camcorders and tape decks.
The immediacy of coming home, getting the tape out of the camera and then putting it in your playback deck and assembling it onto the recording deck had a lot going for it in terms of productivity.
Maybe if we had equivalent hardware devices now instead of everything going into the multi purpose computer it might be more enjoyable to actually edit things.
And would stop the fall down the rabbit hole of tweaking the bollocks off every single shot. 

I've been saying that for the past 40 years and I almost mean it now.

I've been saying that for the past 40 years and I almost mean it now.

I've quoted this before during the G9ii saga but, yes, its right there on the front page of the Micro Four Thirds association official website.

That was the point at which they changed from being "Alternative Music" to "An Alternative To Similar Types Of Music".
They went from being The Smiths to being Coldplay basically.
He is absolutely churning the content out at the moment for some reason.
If you went for this version of the Zfc you could live in both an under $1500 world and a Barbie world simultaneously.

I've been saying that for the past 40 years and I almost mean it now.

Leaving Bluetooth control out of it is a ridiculous decision.
There are of course different ways to control it and yes it is primarily for broadcast but they must know full well that this camera is going to find its way into a lot of filmmaker's hands (hence why they've included the recording features) and in particular onto a lot of gimbals.
Leaving out the option to control it without those other pieces of interfacing gear is real cripple hammer territory.
If its in there but just disabled then they really should enable it toot suite.
At least the original micro had the expansion port connector to enable controllers to be made for it.

I've quoted this before during the G9ii saga but, yes, its right there on the front page of the Micro Four Thirds association official website.

That was the point at which they changed from being "Alternative Music" to "An Alternative To Similar Types Of Music".
They went from being The Smiths to being Coldplay basically.
He is absolutely churning the content out at the moment for some reason.
If you went for this version of the Zfc you could live in both an under $1500 world and a Barbie world simultaneously.

I've quoted this before during the G9ii saga but, yes, its right there on the front page of the Micro Four Thirds association official website.

That was the point at which they changed from being "Alternative Music" to "An Alternative To Similar Types Of Music".
They went from being The Smiths to being Coldplay basically.
He is absolutely churning the content out at the moment for some reason.
If you went for this version of the Zfc you could live in both an under $1500 world and a Barbie world simultaneously.

I've quoted this before during the G9ii saga but, yes, its right there on the front page of the Micro Four Thirds association official website.

That was the point at which they changed from being "Alternative Music" to "An Alternative To Similar Types Of Music".
They went from being The Smiths to being Coldplay basically.
He is absolutely churning the content out at the moment for some reason.
If you went for this version of the Zfc you could live in both an under $1500 world and a Barbie world simultaneously.

Panasonic showed their hand with the G9ii about how they view the new generation of MFT cameras really.
Depending on your point of view its either an S5ii with a tiny sensor or a G7 in a massive overcoat but the net result is the same in that its just not size appropriate to where everyone wants to see MFT.
So the "new" GX85 will not be coming from Panasonic.
But it is there in cameras like the a6700 or even the Nikon Z30 both of which have excellent fast primes from Sigma to balance the body size with the lens size but more importantly can shrink that further by deploying the secret weapon of the TechArt adapters to open up the M mount lenses.
Even on the Fp, using M mounts like the 35mm f2 7Artisans I have here produce very comparable total package sizes than if you were using MFT lenses with similar speed.

The huge difference with using E or Z mount cameras is that with the TechArt you get full AF of these MF M mount lenses as well as being able to do the same trick with an intermediate adapter for other compact lenses such as the Nikon Series E stuff.
With the e mount you can also use the wafer thin MFT to E mount adapter to mount any existing MF MFT lenses on to it like Meike cine primes etc.
If I was looking for an upgrade to a GX85 then I'd be giving the a6700 with M mount a serious look.
 

Its not compulsory 😄
Or even either or.
I was just making the point that M mount is a route for keeping lens sizes compact and in proportion for both small bodies but also in general for those occasions where you want to remain discrete.
For everything else or all other times or somewhere in between  you can use the E mount with native lenses.
With the a6700 being APS-C then this gives you access to smaller AF lenses than FF.
If you use the Sigma ones then they are exactly the same size as the MFT ones so you gain the bigger sensor and the better balance as the camera has a bit more heft and of course the step change in AF and internal 10 bit.
Admittedly, it might go on fire but for those first ten minutes it will be a dream.
Well, here is interesting and an object lesson in not taking everything says on the internet at face value !

This is the Nikon version and as the Sony version also has a mark 2 version then I had presumed that this would be included on that one too.
However, it doesn't explicitly state that it does or it doesn't so it would have to be confirmed by someone who has the new version and if it didn't at launch has it been addressed with firmware.
So, unless someone chimes in who actually owns a v2, I'd take it that the Sony version likely doesn't have continuous AF-C in video mode. It certainly does in stills mode but thats moot for most people (I use the original version with an A7Rii purely for stills as a (very) poor mans Leica M10 with AF).
 

Panasonic showed their hand with the G9ii about how they view the new generation of MFT cameras really.
Depending on your point of view its either an S5ii with a tiny sensor or a G7 in a massive overcoat but the net result is the same in that its just not size appropriate to where everyone wants to see MFT.
So the "new" GX85 will not be coming from Panasonic.
But it is there in cameras like the a6700 or even the Nikon Z30 both of which have excellent fast primes from Sigma to balance the body size with the lens size but more importantly can shrink that further by deploying the secret weapon of the TechArt adapters to open up the M mount lenses.
Even on the Fp, using M mounts like the 35mm f2 7Artisans I have here produce very comparable total package sizes than if you were using MFT lenses with similar speed.

The huge difference with using E or Z mount cameras is that with the TechArt you get full AF of these MF M mount lenses as well as being able to do the same trick with an intermediate adapter for other compact lenses such as the Nikon Series E stuff.
With the e mount you can also use the wafer thin MFT to E mount adapter to mount any existing MF MFT lenses on to it like Meike cine primes etc.
If I was looking for an upgrade to a GX85 then I'd be giving the a6700 with M mount a serious look.
 

Primarily because of the grip so if you add one to the Fp (and most people do) then it narrows the gap.
If you add the EVF into the mix then the optional one for the Fp (which I love by the way) makes the a6700 the winner.
But has IBIS, internal 10 bit, s-cinetone, AF that is on another level to it, tilt screen, gyro data for post stabilisation etc.
And maybe even AF of M mount lenses 😀
Again, its not an either or situation so for some people the Fp will be a better pick because it is smaller, has RAW versus compressed, has a bigger sensor and they might not care about AF or stabilisation at all.
I am that someone a lot of the time with the Fp but, on balance, I think I'd be taking the a6700 as an all rounder in a lot of situations over it if I had one.
As @MrSMW mentions, the A7Cii is then also in the mix if you want the option of both FF but also APS-C for compactness.
 
 

Its not compulsory 😄
Or even either or.
I was just making the point that M mount is a route for keeping lens sizes compact and in proportion for both small bodies but also in general for those occasions where you want to remain discrete.
For everything else or all other times or somewhere in between  you can use the E mount with native lenses.
With the a6700 being APS-C then this gives you access to smaller AF lenses than FF.
If you use the Sigma ones then they are exactly the same size as the MFT ones so you gain the bigger sensor and the better balance as the camera has a bit more heft and of course the step change in AF and internal 10 bit.
Admittedly, it might go on fire but for those first ten minutes it will be a dream.
Well, here is interesting and an object lesson in not taking everything says on the internet at face value !

This is the Nikon version and as the Sony version also has a mark 2 version then I had presumed that this would be included on that one too.
However, it doesn't explicitly state that it does or it doesn't so it would have to be confirmed by someone who has the new version and if it didn't at launch has it been addressed with firmware.
So, unless someone chimes in who actually owns a v2, I'd take it that the Sony version likely doesn't have continuous AF-C in video mode. It certainly does in stills mode but thats moot for most people (I use the original version with an A7Rii purely for stills as a (very) poor mans Leica M10 with AF).
 

Panasonic showed their hand with the G9ii about how they view the new generation of MFT cameras really.
Depending on your point of view its either an S5ii with a tiny sensor or a G7 in a massive overcoat but the net result is the same in that its just not size appropriate to where everyone wants to see MFT.
So the "new" GX85 will not be coming from Panasonic.
But it is there in cameras like the a6700 or even the Nikon Z30 both of which have excellent fast primes from Sigma to balance the body size with the lens size but more importantly can shrink that further by deploying the secret weapon of the TechArt adapters to open up the M mount lenses.
Even on the Fp, using M mounts like the 35mm f2 7Artisans I have here produce very comparable total package sizes than if you were using MFT lenses with similar speed.

The huge difference with using E or Z mount cameras is that with the TechArt you get full AF of these MF M mount lenses as well as being able to do the same trick with an intermediate adapter for other compact lenses such as the Nikon Series E stuff.
With the e mount you can also use the wafer thin MFT to E mount adapter to mount any existing MF MFT lenses on to it like Meike cine primes etc.
If I was looking for an upgrade to a GX85 then I'd be giving the a6700 with M mount a serious look.
 

To be fair, it seems like you specifically want Panasonic to continue making these cameras? Sony has the RX0 and ZV line that are pretty impressive. Although, recently discontinued, the Canon M200 is as tiny of an ILC that you can get. Then you have the Osmo Pocket, Insta360, GoPro, etc... there are tons of options.
For some reason, every other company, except for Panasonic and BM, get a ton of crap on this forum with comments like Cripple Hammer, or whatever, but Panasonic gets a pass because they offer waveforms or something... but I feel like Panasonic is the worst of them all. In the past 3 years Canon has been the biggest innovator and are still making small DSLM cameras... look at the R50 or R100... they're pretty small. An R8 full frame camera with 10bit and cLog3 costs $1299. You can get a Sigma FP for $1000 used and not much more new...
There are options... just not from Panasonic because they only care about full frame now, or they think any worthwhile m4/3 camera should be priced at $2000.