newfoundmass

I don't regret jumping to full frame. The S5 and S5II X have treated me well and both are really good values. It was the right choice at the time, for a multitude of reasons. BUT if I'd known that the G9 II and GH7 were in the pipeline I probably would've stayed with M43. The main benefit for me has been the better low light, but these newer M43 cameras are pretty darn good at that. FF still has an edge, but it's not a huge one. I also don't typically do a lot of work where I need really shallow depth of field. Often times I'm closing the lense down to get similar results to what I got when filming on M43, except these lenses are much heavier and more expensive than the ones I used on my GH5, G85, and GX85 bodies. I could fit all my lenses in a bag and it didn't weigh much at all. The same definitely cannot be said for my FF lenses! The stabilization, to my eye, also looks a lot better on the G9II and GH7 than my S5 and S5II X. I hope Lumix keeps M43 alive and even gets back to innovating with the system. A return to smaller bodies, and possibly even smaller lenses, would definitely pique my interest. I don't know that I'd ever jump back into the system completely, but I could see myself buying a couple lenses and a body if it was compelling enough.

A GH7 (or G9 II if it has unlimited recording and doesn't overheat) really would be my ideal camera. Even though I use the excellent kit lenses a lot on my two S5 bodies and my S5II X, it's still not as light weight as I wish it were. I don't really care about shallow dof and low light isn't nearly as big of an issue when it comes to the GH7 and G9 II based on what I've seen or for what it was on my GH5 cams. But it's hard to justify going back to M43 because I just don't have faith that Lumix is invested in it for the long haul. Everyone i know loves these two cameras, but they don't get the firmware updates that the full frame cameras get. For Lumix that's a red flag because they've always released firmware that gave new features and improved their cameras. I mean, look how long they supported the GH5!

Go to Times Square or Tokyo and you'll see endless 9:16 screens playing (presumably 4K or higher) video. They're massive screens. We're kinda derailing this thread, but it's silly to argue that open gate isn't a benefit for a lot of people. It's cool if you don't need it, but others do.

I meant to mention that the cell phone was attached to the camera cage's coldshoe. Open gate is great for creating shorts in post, but for quicker turn around putting a cell phone on your camera and shooting clips that can be quickly posted is a great option.

I live very close to the border... just sayin'.

double post sorry!

When using 16:9 to create vertical videos, the loss of resolution is less of the issue (at least for me) and more the POV, especially as it pertains to action. You lose so much information cropping a 16:9 video into a 9:16 timeline. Open gate allows you to crop off less from the left and right, giving you more perspective. Here is an example, though it's not exactly a perfect one, since one shot is made from a cropped 16:9 frame and the other is from a cell phone that was filming in 9:16, since we were doing quick on site turnaround working with the college that hired us' social media team, but you'd get the same effect using open gate like we usually do. (Sorry this was just the easiest/most recent example I could make.) This is made from a 16:9 frame. Notice how the celebrating wrestler takes up the entire frame, so you can't see many of the attendees? Here is a shot straight from the vertical video. You'd get the same view if you were cropping an open gate image. The second image is preferable, especially when it comes to marketing ourselves to other colleges who might be interested in hiring us, as they can better see the reaction everything is getting from the students in attendance. Plus, it just offers a broader image that better illustrates the vibe and excitement of the audience.

If you're trying to market yourself in 2026 and beyond you need to create content for social media otherwise you're nowhere near maximizing your potential, both in promoting yourself AND generating revenue. Here's an example that's very specific to me: I run a professional wrestling company. We release video of full matches and generate revenue from that. Individual matches can range anywhere from 5 minutes to over 30. These videos might get a couple thousand views in the first two weeks and generate $2-5 in revenue. However, in those same two weeks, we can release a 15 second vertical clip from the same match and get 50,000-200,000 views and generate $20-100 dollars for that short/reel. So we're generating substantially more from those shorts than we are for the full matches. Aside from the direct monetary benefits, every clip we post promotes the company and our upcoming events, which also drives ticket sales. It has also gotten the attention of local sponsors who help pay our expenses in running events and event planners and organizers who hire us to run events at breweries, festivals, fairs, and other community events. We were hired by almost a dozen people this year to run matches at events, generating tens of thousands in revenue for us. Social media and vertical video made that possible. We're a pretty hot local brand because of it. It's a totally different game when you leverage social media. Vertical video, and having a camera that can film in a way that allows you to re-frame your footage for whatever destination you're creating content for, is a huge deal and a game changer. If you're producing long form content and shorts/reels and aren't using a camera with open gate, you're making your life harder than it needs to be AND putting out content that is visually less pleasing for the people watching it vertically.

I think @MrSMWmeans the social media game. You can post all the content you want, but if you're not posting content in the way people want to view it (vertical) then you might as well not post it at all. The difference in viewership is massive, whether it's the algorithm simply not serving up non-vertical content or people just swipe away from it. If I can film something that can both be used for long form traditional content AND social media vertical content, then I definitely will prioritize cameras that allow me to do that. Open gate is very advantageous feature for those of us who have to create content for both.

Yeah, I hate having to do it but if you don't you're screwed. I really, really, hate it.

I don't wanna come off as defending the YouTubers BUT vertical video (shudder) was a lot less important in 2017. In 2026 it's super important. For those of us who release long form content, but also need to create reels/shorts from that same content, open gate is very important because people are more inclined to swipe away if content isn't vertical for reels and shorts. I hate it with every fiber of my being, but that's how a lot of people consume their content now.

I'd still put the Lumix S5 as one of the best values when it comes to used full frame cameras. I know with the S9 being so cheap, and having notable benefits like better AF, some might opt to go for that instead but I think the image quality is nicer, and I prefer the size for handheld shooting, especially with larger lenses. It's also compatible with the XLR1.

I dunno if it's a spammer or not, but in the event that it isn't: Lighting is very important for photography (and videography), especially indoors. Aside from producing nicer images, it overall helps you become a better photographer as you experiment and put more thought into your shots. Even as a hobbyist it's a good idea to learn and use lighting. I've never used this light specifically, but unless you plan to experiment with RGB and need a ton of output when doing so, you'll probably save some money getting a non-RGB light. If you need to add a little color to your shots you can get a cheaper RGB light to throw on the background or add a little stylish color to the subject. If you're strictly a hobbyist, you can start out with cheap clamp lights and LED bulbs, using things like shower curtains for diffusion. I still do this when I'm in smaller areas where I don't have a ton of room. There are also very affordable soft box sets that come with soft boxes, stands, and bulbs. They are very simple, but serve their purpose.

They are outdated in that they are older cameras that don't have all the bells and whistles of the most modern camera released but in terms of image quality, I think every single one still holds up. I'd very much miss the lack of IBIS and shutter degree, but I could absolutely do my work with three GH3 bodies if I had to and I don't think most people would notice or care. The cons were low light and auto focus (though I still think the GH5's auto focus was usable in real situations despite others proclaiming it to be unusable.) You also needed to hack the GH2 to get the most out of it, so that could be seen as a con for it. The pros? Great IBIS in the cameras that have it (the GH5's IBIS still blows away IBIS in Sony's newest cameras), the battery life was incredible (at least up to the GH5; haven't used the GH6 or 7), no overheating, excellent image quality, decent audio preamps (GH3 on, from my experience), plus you get all the benefits of usinga M43 camera, like the smaller lenses and the ability to adapt anything.

It's funny, because for so long these companies have resisted progress and had to be dragged kicking and screaming (see: digital media, streaming, etc.) but then when they absolutely SHOULD be resisting they have instead capitulated. There is an inevitably to it all, I suppose, but it's still pretty wild at how quickly they've jumped on board.

I definitely like the way these look better but I still thought the 35 Saturn image looked good! To me, I'm just grateful that there are more options out there, as anamorphic has been out of my price range for a long time. And they'll only get better as they fine tune them.

I think there are reasons for even video folks to choose the A7V over the FX2. It's interesting, because they could put that A7V sensor into a cine camera body and mark it up $500-800 and have a successful release. Maybe they still will? Still makes the FX2 feel like a weird release that, even if it hadn't received a lukewarm reception, they undermined almost immediately. Almost feels like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing at Sony.

I think people didn't buy it because at it's heart it's a 4 year old camera re-released in a Sony cinema body (albeit in a vastly improved form, with the awesome EVF), using a sensor that wasn't necessarily optimized for video to begin with. Now that they've released the A7V it makes it an even harder sell. Now people are wondering why they didn't put that sensor into the FX2. I think there probably is something to the story of having to try and get rid of those older sensors, but almost immediately undermining it with the A7V doesn't make sense either. It was a weird release a few months back and even more so in hindsight.

Chinese lenses have gotten really good in general while remaining really affordable. I'm not shocked of the reports that the A7V isn't working well with them, and that Sony is now stressing they don't guarantee compatability. It's bad business every time one of the YouTuber shills favorably compare them to G Master lenses. The anamorphic lenses, including the auto focusing ones, coming out are very interesting. I've been waiting for a really good deal to pop up to try one out.

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.