newfoundmass

Such a great camera. I'd argue it's the best value out there, as far as used cameras go. Still using two myself.

The thing is, open gate is a pretty big deal for people in charge of social media for companies big and small. Almost everyone i know doing that kind of work is a Sony shooter and are frustrated that they don't have that option, while my S5II X does. I know of at least three folks who switched to Lumix for open gate, though that's a drop in the bucket. Still, as other companies introduce it, Sony might find themselves shedding customers if they too don't introduce it soon.

My guess is they have a lot of those sensors they need to offload and this is one way of doing it.

It wouldn't shock me. Those cheap Chinese brands like Viltrox that are putting out very good quality AF lenses for a fraction of what Sony sells their lenses for have to be hurting. When the E-mount was new and competing against DSLR and even M43, it needed all the help it could to expand how many lenses it had. Now, not so much. The L-Mount Alliance makes more sense for Leica, Lumix, and Sigma now, because while the alliance has grown to include some of those Chinese companies that have flooded e-mount, there hasn't been that free for all for L-Mount, presumably because of the agreements?

How is Sony's IBIS still so bad? How is it still missing features that the S5II X had 2 1/2 years ago? Even Canon has caught up. I get it's a hybrid, but this is stuff that social media professionals need/use.

I think it CAN be the most important choice for SOME films, but for MOST films, I genuinely think it matters less now than ever before. I'm not going to say that the ARRI Alexis 35 doesn't have a place and that everything can just be shot on a GH7 or FX3, because that's not true at all either. But how many of them could have been shot on something else and not been any worse for the wear? One of my favorite films of the year is "The Long Walk." It's shot on the ARRI Alexa 35 with Panavision anamorphics (just like the much uglier "Terrifier 3" I mentioned in a previous post!) and looks very good. But if you had switched that ARRI Alexa out for something else, I don't think it'd have had any impact on the film because the acting and story was that good and was what stood out the most about the film. That's not a reason to NOT to film with an ARRI, but it's an example of how less important it is today than ever before. "28 Years Later" is one of the highest grossing films of the year and was shot on an iPhone. Can anyone honestly say that it would've been more successful, financially or artistically, if it'd been shot on an ARRI? Probably not. Conversely, you can't really say that "The Conjuring: Last Rites" would have been less successful if it had been shot on something other than an ARRI, say a PYXIS or lower end Sony.

I really do think the camera is the least important aspect these days though. Lighting, set pieces, costumes, locations, etc. are so much more important. Magellan could have been shot on pretty much any camera from the last 10 years and looked just as good, because everything else about it looks good and it's clearly made with skill and talent. 28 Years Later was a huge disappointment for me as a film (28 Days Later is one of my favorite films of all time) but it's still a gorgeous looking film that was shot on iPhones. If it was shot on a ARRI Alexa 35 it wouldn't have changed what I disliked about the film. And watching it, I didn't think to myself "jeez, this would've looked so much better if they'd film it on a better camera." A LOT of gear went into making it look as good as it does, but the camera itself was pretty low on the list, I think.

Here in the US the GH5 has actually gone up quite a bit in price! It's about $600 currently on eBay and Facebook marketplace. If you're lucky you can snag it for a little less, but a few years ago it was going for about $500. I always liked the image out of the GH5s more, especially the colors. The GH5 wasn't terribly difficult to get right, just a few tweaks most of the time, but the GH5s right out of camera always looked really nice. We're pretty lucky to be able to still use these 10 year old cameras and still get incredible results.

I think we learned long ago that the "camera" was one of the least important parts of telling a story. You can take an iPhone and create beautiful art if what you're filming is compelling, you are skilled enough, and the story you're telling is good. Frankly I'm surprised that we haven't seen more folks using mirrorless cameras, because if anything, they are overkill for a lot of films being shot today, especially ones that will never be seen on the big screen. My buddy made me re-watch Terrifier 3 since he just got into the series. It was filmed on an ARRI Alexa 35 using Panavision anamorphic lenses, but honestly, you never would've been able to tell if they'd shot it on a S1/H, S5/S5II, GH6/7, A7Siii, R5C, etc. and using any of the budget anamorphic lenses that have been released for these cameras. It's great to have an ARRI Alexa 35 and Panavision lenses, I can't really fault any low budget director using them if they have the opportunity to, but it didn't make the film any better and, no offense to the director and editor, but he wasn't skilled enough to get anything more out of using that camera and lenses than if he'd just used any mirrorless camera released in the last 5 years.

If you were in the US (I don't wish that on anyone currently) I'd take you up on it for sure! I've actually been itching to get back into M43, something I didn't foresee coming. I have no plans to get rid of my full frame Lumix cams, I'm still very happy with them, but I do very much miss those small lenses! I've also been looking at a camera that I can further help my nephew learn on, I think a more modern M43 would be great for him to learn on as he wants to try and help Uncle Adam! The funniest thing about getting a M43 camera is that the used prices have GONE UP since I left the system! LOL!

The lack of a full size HDMI doesn't bother me too much because it doesn't support RAW over it anyway, and the 4 inch screen looks really nice that I don't think an external one is necessary. I suppose it might be frustrating for those who want to rig it out or absolutely need an external monitor, but there are quite a few things about this camera that makes that impractical regardless of what the promotional photos show. It'd be nice to have a full size HDMI, and anything that limits how you can use a camera sucks, but it'd also be nice to have two of the same card slots and not located in the battery compartment. If you need that, or want to rig it up, this camera just isn't for you.

I think this is a really compelling camera, especially for the price, BUT the card slot on the bottom, lack of active cooling, and no back up recording is really disappointing. The screen is very cool, though. I really hope more cameras come with larger, brighter screens like this. If I was choosing between the C50 and the ZR I think I'd go with the ZR on price alone, but also because of IBIS. Overall though, I'm pretty content with my Lumix S5IIX and two S5s set up. None of these releases have made me feel like I'm missing out.

IBIS for me was a total game changer, and it's crazy that no one has been able to come close to Lumix in this department.

Bring back the C100 design. One of my favorite cameras I've ever used from a pure ergonomic standpoint. Enough of the modified DSLR bodies for video centric cameras.

That's really unfortunate, re: Tony and Chelsea. Hopefully they find happiness.