kye

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 am planning to use it on my  custom phone with a Linos Mevis c mount 16mm lens. But it will work also with a bigger sensor. In the past I have used super 8 babies on full frame with great results.

Agreed. I felt the same about the G9II. Lowlight is good. Full frame cameras seem to just be INSANELY good. And seems like the crop of full frame cameras for the most part has been this way for the last few years.  I owned the Nikon Z6 OG from 2020-2025. It has the same IMX410 sensor found in the Sony a7iii, Panasonic S5/S1/S5II/S5IIX. That sensor despite being used in 7 yr old bodies like the z6 or a7iii is great in lowlight, 12,800 ISO and 25,600 ISO never looked bad to me I used to push the z6 so hard with wedding films even dipping into 51,200 ISO and noise was always usable. I dabbled a bit with the G9II in January and lowlight seemed noticeably worse, but at the same time it wasn’t BAD per se and cleaned up well in post. Again I think it’s just that full frame cameras are insanely good. But then again so are crop sensors lol…I was just running some lowlight tests with my friends $649 Canon R50V. With some Denoise in Davinci resolve, 12,800 ISO looked great to my eye. Nuts!  12,800! $649 used to get me a Panasonic G7 and decent lens…how far all these cameras have come. I couldn’t dream of getting that type of result on the G7. But this $649 R50V was extremely impressive lol. We are so dang spoiled. I ended up getting a used canon r6 OG for a very good price ($929), overheating aside its a wonderful cam for $1k average. And looks great at ISO 25,600…
 
I think my biggest isssue with the g9II was PDAF seemed to shut off or be used a lot less when above ISO 2500 or 3200 in a lot of cases. Meaning if you want to rely on autofocus it’s hard to really push things. Because I did find that with some Denoise ISO 6400 and 12,800 were honestly not bad. Maybe I also didn’t have the most optimal lens choices…but when I was recently filming at a summer camp where they had a canon r5 (so I could use the r5 when I wanted and my G9II when I wanted), the r5 seemed to wipe the floor with the g9II at 3200ISO and above especially when pushing things. And unfortunately I just seem to have times where I need to shoot in very very lowlight settings. So full frame is a big help. 

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.

Just scored this Petit Cinevision 1.5x baby anamorphic 

Yep that's the kind of intermediary codec that the ZR needs. But only if Nikon doesn't cook it with that aggressive noise reduction. You know the drill, Fuji had similar issues I seem to remember you pointing out. 
Thing is, I don't buy cameras based on promised or wishful features anymore. Been burned too many times waiting for "coming soon" updates that arrive late, incomplete, or not at all. So as of right now, the ZR is off the table for me. It's not just the codec situation though tbh, the unreliable view assist/exposure tools and first gen quirks also give me cold feet. 
Good to know LT is officially on the roadmap, though.. great for early adopters but I think I'm done gambling on "maybe later". 
 

No, I have a GH5s, but I'd like to upgrade, as I need PDAF among other things.

I apologize for the delay, before I expand, I have to say Kye in a note above said it best. In general I don't find -For me and what I shoot- the ZR get's out of the way and just works, I'm not brand new to Nikon yet find the menu diving a bit of a pain, I also can't understand why I can't assign some common used settings to the first quick menu. Getting a card out once you rigged your camera is a nightmare, have to move the whole thing off and pull off anything on the base to access the card. See below on set's like this it's a bit of a mess and you then have to spend time and make sure your camera is back to the right place! Another challenge is the tragic  H265, I shot a small table top for Sephora the other day and couple of mini clips ended up at 293 GIGs, would have shot it on H265 if it was fine, absolutely no need for red code in a perfectly lit set.
I normally shoot on cameras that just do what they need to do and that's all there is to it, we don't even really think much about the camera during the shoot, for my experience so far the ZR isn't that camera!
Again this is just me, I'm sure there are people who love using the ZR and that's excellent 🙂
Edit: spelling!

While I enjoy following the latest camera releases, there would literally be zero ROI on us switching systems anytime in the next 5 years. 

Yeah 100%. We stayed in the Lumix eco system for years using Canon lenses, and it worked. 3 years ago we finally bit the bullet and dropped like 15 grand into upgrading to Sony bodies and Sigma E mount lenses. That being said, we probably won't do a camera upgrade until these die on us, they more than accomplish anything we need from them. At this point, if we need another body, we can always pick up a used FX30 for like $1200 and it fits in perfectly with our FX6 and A7IVs. 

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.

Fair points for sure. 

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.

My own tried and tested formula for determining if prices are getting out of hand is how much of an, erm, “rounding error” occurs when relaying the price I’ve paid for something to the wife.
When it comes to cameras, it would be a base level of 10%.
If I bought a new camera nowadays it would more likely be in the 20-25% area.
The area where my perception of price escalation is most piqued though is  in the price of first party lenses as much as it is cameras.

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!

Good to hear you got a solution that works for your (very challenging) shooting requirements - that's what truly matters!
Low-light is now the current limitation for the high-end MFT line-up.  The GH7 sacrifices having a dual-base-ISO in favour of having the dual-readouts and the DR boost that architecture gives.
I shoot uncontrolled external locations in available light, which means low-light performance is a consideration for me too, but the GH7s performance is enough for my needs.
I suspect the low-light capabilities of MFT would be described as "Very Good to Excellent", but the latest FF cameras now have low-light capabilities that would be described as "Absolutely Incredible" and so MFT lags by comparison.  You can't cheat the laws of physics!
It wasn't that long ago that cameras weren't really usable above ISO 1600 or 3200, so things have advanced very quickly.  Suggesting that you "need" to shooting weddings at ISO 25,600 would have been considered a joke and saying you were serious would have started arguments and gotten you banned as a troll!
Personally I think the "if todays cameras can't do it then you don't need it" is a silly perspective, because it implies that there aren't any new situations or circumstances that are worth recording, and obviously that's just plain ridiculous.
I wonder how the GH7 compares to the original A7S.  The difference might be smaller than you'd think.