kye

Gerald just dropped a video talking about how he has discovered that camera overheating tests are almost completely unreliable.
TLDR; he tested the same camera in the same environment with the same settings, and got results ranging between 55 minutes and 8.5 hours.
Here's the video, which talks about it in much much greater detail:
I think this pretty much means that camera overheating is an un-testable risk for any camera without a fan.  
This is because:
The tester probably didn't tell you what ambient temp they tested at The tester definitely didn't tell you what airflow and ventilation was present The tester probably didn't test all the modes you will use The manufacturer might update firmware after the testing and completely invalidate the data The test won't have been in the situation you're recording in
and, lastly, in case you're still with me... The test is probably a random number generator anyway I think that overheating is now officially the camera boogyman.
Sceptical of overheating in general? I've personally missed moments when my iPhone overheated........and that's a camera that no-one has identified as having a thermal management problem.

Same for many of us Kye, but pertaining to our own needs and we often use this place as both a sounding board and place to ramble and go down rabbit holes. And that's all good.
I'm in a place where I have been frustrated with the tools since about 2010 because for my specific needs, nothing really existed that was 'perfect for my needs' until around 2020/21.
But that then coincided with 2 years of Covid that caused so many issues, one of them being 'sending' me on a tangent I would not have otherwise gone on.
That tangent is called L Mount. Great video specs, but the reality has been not a single body from Lumix, Leica or Sigma that has met my needs and only a couple of lenses.
Chasing the holy grail? Nope, because both the bodies and the lenses 'perfect for my needs' exist with 4 other manufacturers.
So why not just bin L Mount lock stock and barrel and just flip to one of those?
€€€€€ or lack thereof in '23 and '24 and quite probably '25.
Regret L Mount? 
Regret is the wrong word and for the video side, I can't fault it. S1H + S5ii.
For pure stills, can't fault it. S1H.
For my specific hybrid work though, that is where it falls short as the combo of body and lens options I need (NEED), are too big and too heavy for the the duration I use them for.
I can get the result out of it I need, but the process is far from ideal.
So my answer to my own personal frustration/conundrum, has been to keep only the L Mount kit I absolutely need for my video work, and invest all of what I sold with some cash, into a Nikon + adapted E Mount solution for my stills.
My 'ideal' still does not exist. As above, that would be the Sigma FP-X and the contemporary lenses. My 'perfect' set up...except the body does not exist and possibly never will.
I can do it with Canon with the least amount of kit, but with the largest units and most cost...and a cost I cannot afford.
I can do another version totally in E Mount and it actually has a lot of appeal, but again, cost.
Fuji offer everything I need now and has HUGE appeal, but again, cost.
Nikon also have it, combined with E Mount and is at this time, by far and away the most affordable route. It could be my standalone option next year, but we'll see.
In the meantime, like you and many others, I muse over options and that's cool even if some folks don't like it!
 
 
 
 

Yeah, but remember, our situations have almost nothing in common.  You're shooting dreamy images for someone else to pay you money and doing so in a situation where you're expected to be taking up space and using as impressive a camera setup as possible.  I am shooting environmental images for myself in situations where I'm discouraged from taking up space and where having the smallest possible setup is to my advantage.
As far as my understanding goes, if I was doing what you do then I'd also have the same thoughts as you.  I imagine that if you were doing what I do then you'd also understand why I have the priorities that I do.
It's easy to look in at a situation from a distance and see enough of it to have a good overview, but to be far enough from the details that the subtleties aren't apparent. 
The FF user telling the MFT user who wants small cameras that FF is just as good as MFT is like the cinematographer telling the wedding shooter that an FX9 is just as good for shooting wedding videos as a mirrorless, and completely missing that the price, size, weight, workflow, and a dozen small details make the proposition impractical at best.  The comparison probably isn't bulletproof and you could probably find weaknesses in it, but I've had enough issues in the field with the size of my XC10 and GH5 that I can pretty confidently say that the considerations involved are real, even if they aren't obvious to outsiders.  I mean, the other recent thread from @John Matthews was about cameras substantially smaller than the GX85!

Oh I get it Kye. I’m just musing along various trains of thought more than anything but always with at least a nod to the OP and the post.
For sure if I did not need to earn a living from my kit, OM-1 with 12-40mm f2.8 would be my one and done right now.
Something longer I keep on a shelf but bring to that safari adventure, but otherwise, other than the lack of dual ISO, it’s a brilliant little thing.

Yeah, but remember, our situations have almost nothing in common.  You're shooting dreamy images for someone else to pay you money and doing so in a situation where you're expected to be taking up space and using as impressive a camera setup as possible.  I am shooting environmental images for myself in situations where I'm discouraged from taking up space and where having the smallest possible setup is to my advantage.
As far as my understanding goes, if I was doing what you do then I'd also have the same thoughts as you.  I imagine that if you were doing what I do then you'd also understand why I have the priorities that I do.
It's easy to look in at a situation from a distance and see enough of it to have a good overview, but to be far enough from the details that the subtleties aren't apparent. 
The FF user telling the MFT user who wants small cameras that FF is just as good as MFT is like the cinematographer telling the wedding shooter that an FX9 is just as good for shooting wedding videos as a mirrorless, and completely missing that the price, size, weight, workflow, and a dozen small details make the proposition impractical at best.  The comparison probably isn't bulletproof and you could probably find weaknesses in it, but I've had enough issues in the field with the size of my XC10 and GH5 that I can pretty confidently say that the considerations involved are real, even if they aren't obvious to outsiders.  I mean, the other recent thread from @John Matthews was about cameras substantially smaller than the GX85!

Not really.
All I want is a GX85 with a modern sensor, so Dual ISO and higher DR.  
I don't need / want LOG, 10-bit, 422, ALL-I, RAW, PDAF, a flippy screen, dual card slots, 6K or more, mic-in, etc, etc, although if they came with no penalties then I wouldn't hate having them.  In the real world though, they do come with penalties - huge ones (see rant at the end of this post).
Absolutely.
Yeah, this thread was more of a temperature check, just to make sure there wasn't something I'd forgotten, and to have another thorough think-through of it.
I'm not sure I'd swap to another system right now even if it was free.
The GX85 with 12-35mm still feels on the large side, so casually stretching to something 50% larger isn't a casual proposition at all.
That's my feeling too.  
Panasonic has said there won't be more compact cameras, but has also said over and over that they're fully behind MFT, and having spent a long time developing the dual-gain PDAF sensor in the GH6 it would be pretty easy for them to capitalise on that investment by doing refreshes of the rest of the lineup.  Hell, even if things trickled down and they released a GX camera with the sensor and processors from the GH5, that would be a good outcome for me.
I'm actually deeply suspicious about the current size comparison between MFT, S35, and FF cameras, and how they're all a similar size and weight.  The FF bodies with IBIS do tend to be heavier, but are the same size, and something smells fishy to me.
If a sensor is smaller then it takes less power to run it, and it takes FAR less power to move it around for IBIS.  The sensor is also a lot lighter, and the IBIS motors will be dramatically lighter.  This means that if all else was equal the batteries should be smaller or last longer, and the internals should be smaller and lighter.  I understand that the screen is independent of sensor size, as are lots of other things in the camera, but when combined with a smaller sensor with a lower resolution the processors should be smaller.  The camera module from the iPhone is practically microscopic.
BUT, that's not what we're seeing.
I suspect it's a combination of lowered IBIS performance (the motors not being able to move as fast or as far, but no technician out there will get their shit together and actually make a test setup for this), combined with the manufacturers just not trying, which I think is quite sad.
What this means in practice though is that it should be easily possible for a GX sized camera with modern components and design to offer a serious challenge to the specs of the larger S35 and FF cameras.
Now I've moved to zooms, I seem to be swimming against the prevailing winds of the camera market once again.
I want MFT zooms to be F2.8 or slower, a standard 3x (~24-70mm) or 10x zoom ratio, and as small as possible.  I'd be happy if the attempts to make them smaller meant that they were 12MP or less in resolution.
Instead, the market has put making the fastest and sharpest lenses known to man as the first priority, relegating size to third priority (there is no second priority), and because everyone is shooting wide open they've managed to get the whole industry to basically stop discussing anything else except 150fps animal-eye-detect focus performance.
When I think about a FF camera with an F2.8 lens I think of it having too shallow DoF for my compositions, and by the time I stop it down I now need the second base ISO just to give it a normal exposure after the sun has gone down.  
It's been a long journey for me, but now MFT seems to be the sweet spot of DoF and exposure to create the right aesthetic in a sensible amount of light, which makes the AF performance far less critical, and when combined with a 4K sensor the data rates aren't stratospheric, the lenses can be budget friendly, you can do it on affordable SD cards internally, making the whole camera package smaller.  ....not to mention you don't need a supercomputer to edit the footage.
The "better" cameras on the market seem to have "improved" every aspect, but the challenge is that when you "improve" one aspect you make all the others far worse, in a never-ending game of "one step forward, six steps back, and how will you be paying for this today sir?".

Invariably, the conversation goes to FF. Personally, I thought about that Sigma FP and Panasonic 28-200 (with IS). That combo seems super versatile now. Size-wise, the FP is the size of a mid-range MFT camera. The equivalent of the Panasonic lens would be a 14-100 f/2-2.8 zoom, which would be incredible. The package would come in at 830-ish grams.
I've always thought this: if L-mount comes out with smaller pancakes and a few reasonably priced very small bodies, MFT would be on a path to obsolete. Until then, MFT cameras will continue to make decent strides in terms of features and at least on the used market, their prices continue to rise- the true indicator of a camera's value.
On a side note, I'd wait because there have been reports on a small Panasonic camera is in the works. My bet is that it will have PDAF and some other decent features. This could be more than a year away though.

@kye we've discussed this a bit in the past regarding selling everything and moving to a new system and normally I would be against it... I still consider my 5D3 with ML Raw as my main camera... but if my main camera was a m4/3, I might consider it.
Unfortunately, m4/3 as a small camera system is a thing of the past. Any new cameras will be as big as Panasonic's FF offerings, so if you want any of the upgrades you mentioned, the only option is to change systems or deal with the bigger m4/3 bodies. Sony could be a great option, as @BTM_Pix mentioned because you can use some of your current manual focus m4/3 lenses with a simple adapter while you decide what lenses you'd like to invest in. Also, eventually there will be no m4/3... it may not be for a few years, but the writing is on the wall... so your Voigtlander lenses will become VERY expensive paper weights. Sell them while you still can.
Then again, if you are happy with the images you are getting with what you already own, then there's no reason to upgrade.
But if you want some of the features you mentioned, the only options are a change in systems... hell you can have a lot, if not all including size, by going full frame. In the end, after selling off/trading what you have, you could probably end up with more money. 

“All I want is the perfect camera”.
I hear you. We should add the word ‘system’ after the word camera because there is too much emphasis on the body, but if the glass is not there…
The best F1 car on normal road tires is a nicely painted tin can.
I wish M4/3 could work for me as it’s primary appeal is the size & weight but the reality is the kit I would want is the bigger stuff, the OM-1 or G9ii and the 10-25 + 25-50 zooms and we’re talking as big as FF with a number of performance deficiencies in comparison.
Discounting MF, at FF we have everything I want and need, but at the most weight, size and cost.
APSC still seems to be the sweet spot for me, all factors considered and I am pretty sure that with a clean sheet and a reasonable budget for 2024 (I have neither) then I would go back to Fuji who have come good since I left the system at the end of 2020.
2021 the XT4 was the new boy and was just about where I needed the body side of the equation and they already had the glass and since then, Tamron joined the party.
Fxxking Cxvid. If that arsehole had not come along, I would still be a Fuji dude.
At heart, I think I still am. 

Well, that rules them out, which is unfortunate.
Yeah, it has to be MFT.  Not only to share my existing lenses with the GX85, but also because the FF lenses are gargantuan in comparison and pretty sparse really.
Not only would it be too large (and "Smallest" is literally the first word in the title of this thread) but compatibility is another whole thing that just isn't a factor when sticking to a single lens system.
Yeah, it's just the frustrations of when I hit its limitations, which when I'm travelling is a multiple-times-per-day sort of thing, and is often in a that-would-have-been-the-killer-shot-from-this-location-but-the-camera-couldn't-do-it sort of way.
I'm fully aware that I want a camera that can do a wide range of things very very well, but you can't fault someone for trying to improve things.  The thing I find fascinating is that even if I had a million-dollar budget for a setup, I still couldn't get what I want.

The new 28-200 is roughly the same size and weight as the 20-60mm so it is a lot more balanced to the Fp.

It has a a great range and having the OIS offers an interesting proposition of it turning the Fp into a very compact Cinecorder.
However, it is very, very slow on the long end though, particularly for only 200mm.
Not that ultra shallow depth of field is the be all and end all of course but f7.1 is a bit of a stretch.
Of course the swing to that particular roundabout is that you don't have to worry so much about the camera not having sentient AF !

It does seem to be a case of the missing Panasonic GX-series camera with modern sensor.
Revisiting the lineup, each with their smallest equivalent of a 24-70mm and a 24-240mm, here's the GX85, the A6700, the FX3, and the FP:

The A6700 seems to have good options in the 18-55 and 18-135mm variable aperture lenses, which aren't too big.
The FX3 would be the choice for Sony FF due to its high-ISO performance, and the tiny 28-60 really is tiny.  The 24-240 is a lot bigger than the 14-140 on the GX85, but it's pretty small for FF.  
Lastly, the FP seems to only have OIS options for 24-105 and 28-200, but they're not in the camerasize database, so pictured above is the 24-70/2.8 which is a tank.
Canon and Nikon are notably absent.  By the time the FX3 and FP are in the mix, we've deviated so far from the GX85 that we may as well be having an open house.
I guess the summary is that there isn't anything in MFT, but if I wanted to completely re-buy everything in my entire camera bag, there are options that are larger, incredibly more expensive, and better, but no-where near better enough to make me consider any of them for a single second.
The more I think about it, the better the AI options in post seem.

I think I droned out these exact same thoughts in the G9ii or some similar thread about MFT but I'll repeat them anyway 🙂 
In terms of a new camera, I honestly think its time to give up on Panasonic producing that specced up GX85 that everybody knows they could make if they wanted to.
In the absence of the "new" Olympus not doing anything to move the MFT story along either in terms of a compact then something like the A6700 is that camera now.
As well as being a larger sensor, it ticks every box of what is being asked for in terms of being dual native ISO, 10bit 4:2:2 internal, IBIS, class leading AF, LOG and a very good out of the box profile in S-Cinetone.
Very flexible mount in that it can even take your MFT manual focus lenses and has very good options like the Meike EF>E which will give you full AF of Canon lenses with the bonus of variable ND.
In terms of native lenses, there are a lot more E mount options now compared to when, say, the GX85 launched and it is seeing more releases every month unlike MFT which is slowing now.
The writing was on the wall when Sigma expanded their compact f1.4 prime lineup with the 56mm and didn't release an MFT version. 
Their two compact contemporary f2.8 zoom lenses are also not available in MFT of course.
Size wise there isn't anything in it from the front and the GX85 is actually a fraction bigger.

The A6700 is deeper but most of that is attributable to the chunky grip which, to me, is no bad thing as the GX85 is not chunky enough for me and the A6700's incorporates a dial too.

Price wise, it is a lot more expensive than the GX85 was on launch but so is everything else now and it is significantly cheaper than Panasonic's latest MFT camera, the G9ii.
The virtual shark jumping price of the G9ii makes me suspect that even if Panasonic did produce a new specced up GX85 that it would likely be at least as expensive as the A6700.
If you want to be closer spiritually to a combo of the GX85 and OG Pocket then, if you embrace the quirks, the Sigma Fp is well worth a consideration particularly as the used prices are dropping.

Personally, I'd add the EVF-11 as it is so much nicer to shoot with whilst at the same time you can remover it and leave it in your pocket if you need to go smaller. The tilt action of the EVF enables you to press the camera to your chest to offer a lot more stability when handholding.
That is important because you lose IBIS of course but you gain RAW and, as with the AF of the Fp, the internal 8 bit 4K is far more serviceable than people give it credit for and if you only need HD then its 12 bit internal. 
As with the EVF, the modularity means that if you want more capability in terms of bit depth then you can add it easily and discreetly.
The Fp has largely been forgotten/written off by an awful lot of people around the world but in Japan, in particular, there is some absolutely lovely imagery being uploaded to YouTube every week from it.
 

Not a single Olympus or OM System camera has dual ISO. None. Otherwise, the best Olympus camera for the size is the OM-5 or E-M5 iii.

Well secretly…
I had a pair of EM5 ii’s for a year for my ‘pro’ video work and used for some ‘pro’ photo, looking at going even smaller and lighter than Fuji X APSC.
But in the end decided that using that P word, although the output was good and loved the size, weight and build, it was not quite ‘P’ enough for my needs.
When the OM-1 came out, I trialed that and once again, loved everything about it except for that final X amount of P’ness. (Do not read that out loud).
If however, I wanted a hybrid system and not a working P, I’d invest in a small system based around the OM-1. Probably with the 12-40mm f2.8 as my main lens and something longer if I went on safari or was interested in birds. The feathered type. I am very much interested in the featherless variety, but from within legal parameters. I do not wish to ever become a person of interest to the feds.
There is also the current OM-5 which is kind of like a smaller, lesser OM-1, but then may as well go for a dirt cheap used EM5 ii.
And then there is also the super stylish Pen F, but not sure what video capabilities it had…

10-bit is always better than 8-bit, and 4:2:2 is always better than 4:2:0, but the question is if that difference is actually visible / meaningful.  If you're doing very little grading in post then 8-bit vs 10-bit and 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 probably doesn't have any visible or meaningful difference.
But I suggest doing a test.  Just find a bunch of scenes around the house (or not out of the way) and shoot the same composition in each mode and then just load them up side-by-side and look at them.  If the 8-bit 4:2:0 shot doesn't make your stomach turn then just go with it.
In the end, if you can lessen the impact or eliminate overheating, that you can lessen or eliminate the impact of running out of SD card space, then that means you can relax more while recording, you could shoot more, you can have extra time and energy and headspace that was previously devoted to worrying about or managing these things.  If you can have more headspace and be more relaxed while shooting then the way you use the camera, and the way that you behave while recording will be better.  If you behave better then what is in front of the camera might also be better.
So, realistically, the option is potentially of having a very slightly worse recording of potentially much better material.

It's in that camp with the GH5 as being on the large side..  Realistically, I like the GX85 but just want some upgrades in DR and low-light, and in the absence of that existing I've worked out that I could have two setups, one for running around and one for slower situations where I don't have exactly the same requirements.  
So the GH5S is better than the GX85, but is larger and has worse DR than the P2K, so it's sort of wins and losses in comparison.  Considering I already own a GH5 and a P2K, it's a tough sell to buy a whole new camera for essentially no net benefit.
I know very little about Olympus lineup and was secretly hoping that someone would go "there's always the Olympus XYZ - it's perfect!"....  what models might suit?

10-bit is always better than 8-bit, and 4:2:2 is always better than 4:2:0, but the question is if that difference is actually visible / meaningful.  If you're doing very little grading in post then 8-bit vs 10-bit and 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 probably doesn't have any visible or meaningful difference.
But I suggest doing a test.  Just find a bunch of scenes around the house (or not out of the way) and shoot the same composition in each mode and then just load them up side-by-side and look at them.  If the 8-bit 4:2:0 shot doesn't make your stomach turn then just go with it.
In the end, if you can lessen the impact or eliminate overheating, that you can lessen or eliminate the impact of running out of SD card space, then that means you can relax more while recording, you could shoot more, you can have extra time and energy and headspace that was previously devoted to worrying about or managing these things.  If you can have more headspace and be more relaxed while shooting then the way you use the camera, and the way that you behave while recording will be better.  If you behave better then what is in front of the camera might also be better.
So, realistically, the option is potentially of having a very slightly worse recording of potentially much better material.

10-bit is always better than 8-bit, and 4:2:2 is always better than 4:2:0, but the question is if that difference is actually visible / meaningful.  If you're doing very little grading in post then 8-bit vs 10-bit and 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 probably doesn't have any visible or meaningful difference.
But I suggest doing a test.  Just find a bunch of scenes around the house (or not out of the way) and shoot the same composition in each mode and then just load them up side-by-side and look at them.  If the 8-bit 4:2:0 shot doesn't make your stomach turn then just go with it.
In the end, if you can lessen the impact or eliminate overheating, that you can lessen or eliminate the impact of running out of SD card space, then that means you can relax more while recording, you could shoot more, you can have extra time and energy and headspace that was previously devoted to worrying about or managing these things.  If you can have more headspace and be more relaxed while shooting then the way you use the camera, and the way that you behave while recording will be better.  If you behave better then what is in front of the camera might also be better.
So, realistically, the option is potentially of having a very slightly worse recording of potentially much better material.

I would say I vacillate between #2 and #3. Maybe an occasional brief flash of #1 when I'm lucky.
Oh no, not at all. We shot this over the summers of 2015, 2016, and 2017- that's where the title comes from. Probably 40-50 shooting days of anywhere from 2-6 hours each day. The curved rail at 2:48, for example, we were there for about three hours, in 90+F July heat. I shot 176 tries, with the landed clip you see in the video being around hour 2 and try 100. But Chy and I are both a bit of compulsive perfectionists and we wanted a following fisheye angle too, so we kept going and only stopped because some guy selling fireworks in the parking lot next to us wandered over and lit an industrial smoke bomb in the middle of the spot because he thought it would give a cool music video vibe 😄 Was kind of a blessing actually as you couldn't even see your hands after that and it forced us to stop.

That's a cool edit too @Al Dolega.  Nice pacing, good rhythms, nice use of the non-trick shots to break things up, etc.
These more 'percussive' styles of editing remind me of programming break-beats in music production.  You need the right amount of things happening on the rhythm to keep it going, but enough things that are off to keep it interesting and fresh, and enough variety in the whole thing to separate it from everyone else's work.

Well, you fooled me into thinking you didn't struggle.
In my travels I've found there are only a few types of editors:
People that love it and push themselves and put in the hours to create great work People that don't love it, but have somehow found a way (or get pushed by someone else) to grind through the process to get great edits People that don't put in the work and create edits that are good enough / functional / uninspired / plain / blah People that create shit edits People that don't edit and either do 25 minute rambling time wasters, livestreams, or simply don't finish projects at all Cool to hear that you're editing women skaters like men, and especially with someone as skilled as Chynna.  I skated for many years in my youth, both skateboarding and later roller-blading, and I have just enough skill to know how crazy the tricks in that video are.  Especially considering they were all shot in one day, I assume from the title?
If you're someone who likes analysing the work of others and can take tricks from one genre to another, this episode of Parts Unknown is the best editing I've ever seen:
It has every effect I've ever seen in those trendy 'transition-fest' travel videos from the hey-day of Vimeo, but done way better, has transitions I've never seen elsewhere, has editing styles from across the board, and makes all other non-narrative editing look plain and pedestrian, and makes the best of YT creators look like amateur hour at the local craft fair.  Anthony Bourdain was famous for giving editing notes worse than anything the YT comments section contains, and doing it for version after version after version, and I think this might have been the high-water-mark for this type of highly-stylised editing.

Browsing vintage cameras and some not so vintage cameras like the S1H I searched the comments section to reassure myself of my S1H purchase. 🙂 I recognised a member of our forum and browsed his content finding a variety of awesome lumix material and beautifully filmed skating action. I came around this 8bit masterpiece, filmed with a GH4 and a G85. Awesome stuff! @Al Dolega  So how do you like your S5II so far?:)
Congrats on your awesome content, and the image you got out of the GH4 and G85! What profile did you use, lenes?:) Silly me asking, despite owning great other cameras with modern codecs. But these little cameras are so much fun to play around with and talk about. Still loving my GX85. I like the resolution but lack of oversharpness in this video, also the natural and beautiful color palette. Anyway, some 8bit Mft greatness:
 

I was in Lapland 2 weeks ago and I'm now in Alaska.
If you don't have them yet buy a great pair of glows with inner glows so you can take out the first layer without exposing your bare skin to the helmets.
Filming yourself -> Insta360 One X3
Filming others -> Gopro Hero 12 or Insta360 Ace Pro
 


 

I bought a used OM-1 a while ago, and it's slowly turned into my favoured camera for video since then (despite some of its annoyances).
I think part of the reason for that is because it has a very fast readout stacked sensor, with rolling shutter time around 5-7 ms in FHD & UHD, which seems to give a 'solidity' to the video combined with fluid motion handling (I normally shoot at 50p), compared to my G9 with about 12-15 ms rolling shutter.
If my liking of the OM-1 video is due to low rolling shutter then maybe I'm subconsciously sensitive to the picture  distortions created by rolling shutter (including interactions with the IBIS behaviour). But then I'm often filming subjects like trains which readily show up rolling shutter distortions, so maybe that's sensitised me to it?