kye

This is awesome - thanks for sharing! What kind of DCTLs are you writing?

Doh - forgot to list the 9mm F1.7 lens. That's the ultra-wide I'll be taking too. So the total count is one body, 5 lenses, my phone with vND. I was slightly conflicted about the "wide-angle night cinema" slot. The SB+50/1.4 is equivalent to a 71mm F2.0 on FF, so having something wider seems an obvious thing but I'm just not sure if I would use it. I've mentioned the 12-35mm F2.8 as my night walk-around lens, and when combined with the GH7 low-light capability it's a fine combination, but it's not crazy fast/bright and isn't the best "cinema" option around. The things I considered were: my TTartsans 17mm F1.4, which is small and light and despite being soft wide-open is probably quite cinematic my 14mm F2.5 which is small and light but is bettered by the 12-35mm on flexibility grounds being a zoom my Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95, which is a great performer but is quite heavy my c-mount 12.5mm F1.9, which is similar FOV when you crop in to its S16 image circle my 9mm F1.7 combined with the GH7 cropping, which is fast but sacrifices resolution and doesn't have the DOF advantages of other options (although I am already taking it) SB + 28mm F2.8 combos, but it's hard to get a reasonable quality 28mm F2.8 in M42 mount and it's not that fast anyway I opted to take the 12-35mm (which I sort-of take as a backup lens to the 14-140mm zoom) but if I do end up wanting a wider fast lens for night cinema, I think I might just bite the bullet and get the PanaLeica 15mm F1.7 as it'll be light and have AF and be sharper than I could ever want. I looked at the reviews of a bunch of budget F1.4 or faster lenses around the 14-20mm mark but I'd never be sure if it was as sharp as I'd like, and spending money to get something that isn't that much faster than my 17/1.4 or that much lighter than my 17.5/0.95 seems silly. MFT is the wrong format for ultra-fast wide lenses, and I already have lots of options for something I might not use, so the whole thing might end up being academic anyway.

Getting prepped for my next trip and have further refined my setup. This trip is a quick trip to China, but it's also a test case for a trip I'm taking later in the year to Europe where the packing approach will be minimalism. Unlike the way I like to travel in Asia, the Europe trip will involve changing accommodation every few days, so packing and unpacking and hauling bags around will be much more of a pain, so I'll try and travel really minimally. As such, my approach for this trip is "when in doubt, don't take it" and see what I actually use. So the setup for this trip is: GH7 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 zoom, which I use during the day at F5.6 which means my 1-5 stop vND is enough 12-35mm F2.8 zoom, which is a great walk-around lens after dark Takumar 50mm F1.4 with M42-MFT Speedbooster (with bokeh insert) for "night cinema" iPhone 17 Pro setup (Neewer phone filter mount, K&F 1-9 stop vND, MagSafe Popsocket) The GH7 and zooms are self-explanatory, so here's the 50mm F1.4 setup. I have played around with "inserts" and ended up with a pretty extreme design, so this is a test to see if the vertical edges are too strong a look for me. It's made from the sticky part of the post-it note, and a layer of sticky tape over the top to keep it a bit more together. It sits between the speed booster and the lens, and I won't use the speed booster for any other lenses while travelling so this will stay in there and protected, so doesn't need to be that robust. It's a strong look in some situations and quite "painterly" in others, so I'll be curious how it goes. For my iPhone 17 Pro, it's a phone most of the time and a camera only as a backup, so I searched for a setup that would: Protect my phone from drops (I dropped it on the last trip and the screen shattered, despite it being in an Apple case - the only one available at the time... sigh) Still be right-sized for getting in and out of pockets etc Have a vND solution for when I want to shoot and use 180 shutter I'll spare everyone from the rant about the options out there (everyone wants you to buy into their "ecosystem" now) so I ended up with the Otterbox Defender Series Pro case, which makes the iPhone feel even larger than it did in the Apple case (which doesn't seem possible but is true), but seems very robust. The vND is the Neewer phone filter mount, which sort-of clips onto the phone (It's designed to screw onto and clamp the phone but you're clamping against the screen, so I wouldn't tighten it that much). It's designed for a naked iPhone, so I had to modify it (and the Otterbox case) slightly where it interfered with the Otterbox case to get it to sit a bit flatter. It still doesn't sit flush, but it goes on and seems to be fine. I haven't got around to actually taking it out to shoot with it, so that remains to be seen. I paired it with the K&F 1-9 stop vND, which boasts 18 layers etc, but doesn't claim to be a "True Colour" one like the 1-5 stop ones do. It doesn't have hard stops and I think it still gives the X at the max amount, but I'll see how I go. Not having an aperture sure sucks considering you're not really losing having shallow DOF. That is all combined with the MagSafe Popsocket as a safeguard. I've used the adhesive popsockets before and they're great for giving a much better grip on the phone, but I wasn't sure how strongly the MagSafe would be. The Otterbox claims to have magnets in it that strengthen the MagSafe connection, and this might be true. It feels quite sturdy actually, and I tested it to require 1.75kg of force to pull off, compared to the 1.45kg of force it took to pull it off my naked iPhone 12 mini. No idea what strength a naked iPhone 17 Pro MagSafe connection would have, but it's not terrible. Lots of compromises involved, but it's really my backup camera, and the Otterbox case is very grippy, so I'll see how I go.

Come on John... everyone knows that anyone who wants better footage than a smartphone can provide is 100% totally fine with a camera the size of a microwave oven that looks like a Borg prototype! Being slightly serious though, it's easy to criticise, but as someone who wants flexibility and better sound options, this is FAR better than the previous options, so it's a welcome addition in my eyes. The worst enemy of progress is criticising everything that isn't perfect in every conceivable way.

Panasonic just released a new on-camera mic. Looks like an excellent option for events etc where you want something small or something really flexible. I've watched a few YT showcases and for me, the best features are: It gives you 32-bit without having to have the external mic preamp box (and then adding microphones to that, making it larger again) It's small, much smaller than an on-camera shotgun mic You can quickly swap between modes (I assume?) it's powered by the camera It unlocks the ability to record >2 channels of audio into the files (one person said you can record left/right/mono/mono-20dB as a combo, and left/right/left-20dB/right-20dB as a different combo) It's definitely not magic and the laws of physics still apply. There don't seem to be any really good on-location stress tests posted yet, but there's a few examples. Media Division did an in-kitchen test to compare it to in-camera mics and lav and a DJI clip-on, and also applied a bit of AI voice isolation too to see how far you can push it: Dustin did some good tests including walking a 360 around the camera in each mode, which showed how directional it is, which seems pretty impressive. He also compared it to the Sennheiser MKE440. This shows the different modes out in nature: This is probably a complete revolution for a number of niche uses. Content creators would be one, where they're recording in noisy environments but still staying relatively close to the camera where physics will be helping them. Another is where the flexibility really helps, like shooting events where getting pristine audio isn't an absolute must but working super-quickly is more important and perhaps the 32-bit would really come into its own. This reminds me of how people used to talk about Panasonic when the GH4 and GH5 were around and people were saying that Panasonic just listened to people and then implemented the features that people would use rather than trying to be flashy and grab headlines. This will be an invisible workhorse for lots and lots of people.

Nice! What formats and focal lengths is it compatible with? and what camera and taking lens combos are you planning to use with it?

My take on the situation is that I'm super-happy with the GH7. It basically does everything I want, and apart from having ultra-sharp ultra-shallow DOF, pretty much does most things that FF does. It does low-light very well, and is only behind the low-light from FF cameras because they have gotten crazy good.

I went with the GH7 as I'm video-first and need the heat management etc. The G9ii is an incredible camera though. There's a whole thread about it here: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/90374-panasonic-g9-mark-ii-i-was-wrong/ Do you have either one?

It was released in mid-2024 🙂 Definitely a strong camera though. I expect mine to be useful for many years, and TBH, I haven't felt jealous over a new camera release since buying it.

For anyone interested in understanding a bit more about the relationship between technical measurements and aesthetic experiences, this video is very interesting. Perhaps the challenge is that many people believe there's a golden zone of sharpness where it's softer than clinical glass, but sharper than poor performance vintage glass, but as there's very little qualitative data it's hard to know how a lens performs. The video gives a non-technical primer on MTF charts, and discusses what potential uses there are for different levels of performance, culminating in this chart. I particularly like this approach because the thinking is well beyond "good vs bad" lenses and takes the much more mature approach of "the right tool for the job". This is an example of this kind of thinking from the video: Recommended viewing if you want to go beyond "I like this lens" and "I don't like that lens"!

I find it incredible that people talk about switching bodies / systems all the time without really considering the wider ecosystem of lenses and accessories. Hell, I've stayed within the MFT system and whenever I get a new MFT body there are still all these extras that I end up being surprised about and inflate the price by 10-15%. If I was re-buying lenses then it would double/triple/quadruple the cost. I have no idea what the economics of lenses are, but I wouldn't be surprised if the camera body is now a loss-leader and the lenses where all the profit is.

Well, we've gotten drastically better pixels, but because everyone has been screaming incoherently about wanting sharper images the manufacturers took the higher performance and kept the same overall image performance but made the pixels smaller so there's more of them. Everyone said they wanted a camera that could match the 2.5K Alexa, but because there were more people screaming for resolution than screaming for quality the industry took it's improvements and gave us mediocre 4K cameras, then more improvements and we got good but not great 5K downsampling cameras, then more improvements and we got quite good 6K cameras, and since then the flagship bodies have given us 8K / 12K / 17K cameras with pixels that are close to rivalling the 2.5K Alexa. So ARRI released the Alexa 35, and now there's a 4K ARRI camera that absolutely smashes the 8K / 12K / 17K flagship cameras. It's a complete myth that cameras aren't getting better. They're getting better by leaps and bounds, but almost all those gains have been "spent" on smaller pixels / higher resolution. If that hadn't been the case, you'd probably have had every other feature you've ever wanted by now.

Good points. The way I see it is there's a toxic feedback loop of consumerism, hype, marketing, and release cycles. The skepticism and criticisms around this is justified, but the forgotten ingredient in this whole picture is us - the people paying attention. Without us, the whole thing falls flat. I would suggest the uncomfortable truth is that the people caught up in the drama of it are either making money from it (manufacturers, dealers, influencers, etc) or are desperately trying to buy their way into making nicer images. I will be the first to admit I did this. I tried to buy gorgeous images by swallowing the myth that Canon colour science was the answer, then that 4K was the answer, then that shallow DOF was the answer. The truth was that even if someone handed me an Alexa LF I'd still have made awful looking images. Sure, there are people making great work and want to upgrade their equipment from time to time and dip into the chaos briefly, but once they've made their decision and bought something that works for them, they tune out again. These people are spending their time on lighting tutorials, getting better at pre-production and planning, learning how to improve their edits, etc. They're not watching reviews and talking online about the colour subsampling of the 120p modes of the latest 12 cameras that are rumoured to come out in the next 17 minutes. My advice to you is this - if you feel like this then take a break from the industry and try and remember why you got into this in the first place. I'll bet it wasn't because you found a deep love for reading spec sheets!

"my mood tanks and it bleeds into the set" is a great way to express what I was thinking. I might have to steal your wording! I've had cameras I've loved to use and ones I always felt like I was struggling against, and it's definitely something that can be difficult to quantify. I suspect it's that we each have a range of priorities and preferences, and after getting used to the equipment and learning how it impacts the whole pipeline from planning through delivery and perhaps even into repeat business, the feeling we get is perhaps representative of how well it aligns with our individual preferences. It's easy to compare specs and pixel pee images, but there are lots of things that can be a complete PITA that don't show up on the brochures or technical tests. When reading your original post it felt like you want to go with the C50 and are trying to talk yourself into it / justify it. One thing that I think is underrated is the idea of the quiet workhorse. A camera that is a professional tool, does what you need without fuss, and doesn't have a lot of fanfare. For me that was the GH5 (although the colour science and AF weren't great) and now the GH7. These sorts of cameras don't grab headlines, but the fact that they're quiet workhorses rather than outlandish divas means you're able to move past the tech and concentrate on what you're shooting and the quality of the work. Canon have a very solid reputation in this regard - there's a reason they ruled the doc space for decades. One other thought.. if you don't have one already, consider buying a nice matte box. It'll help to stabilise the rig and will also make you look more impressive to clients!

I think you've been looking at the camera industry too long. We operate in a marketplace where people offer goods and services and if people want to purchase them they do, and if not, they don't. There are reasons why Governments might incentivise or subsidise various industries or products or behaviours, but I don't think any of these apply to cameras. The only other situation that is an exception is if something starts to become a necessity, like clean water or reliable electricity supply, and more recently now internet access is getting into this territory. When this happens then efforts might need to be made to ensure that these things are accessible. I very much doubt anyone is arguing that high-end mirrorless cameras are a human right, in which case they should just be traded like all goods, where they're subject to the laws of demand and supply. You can't get your house painted for $50 because paint and labour costs more than that. You can't buy a car for $9 because no-one has worked out how to make them for anything remotely like that price. You can't buy a super-car for $10000 because the market has valued them significantly above that.