newfoundmass

Gotta squeeze the last juice out of the fruit. There are a lot of FX3 users itching to buy a new camera, and either the FX3II isn't coming soon or they plan to raise the price significantly.

Honestly the color science from Lumix recently is one of the more underrated things they have going on. It might actually be my favorite currently, but people don't really talk about it much.

The only thing that makes this camera not of interest to me is the price tag. It actually seems like a quality release, but that's just not a competitive price for me at least. My first thought would be to upgrade from the S5II X to the S1II, and then upgrading my two S5s to S5IIs. But It'd make more sense to keep the S5II X and then upgrade the two S5s to the S5II for less than what a S1II would cost me. Still, it's a decent camera. I hope it does well.

I don't think Lumix gets nearly the credit they deserve for everything they throw into these cameras. You could argue that they almost put too much in. The codecs, frame rates, and aspect ratio options could be considered overwhelming by some folks.

I think it's a good release, just a bit overpriced. $2500-2800 would be a much more competitive price point. I imagine it'll be under $3000 soon enough. I'll stick with my S5s and S5II X though. I do like the new lens. I like that it's size. But I think I'll stick with the 20-60 kit lens. That 20mm focal length is really nice to have.

Feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone where Gerald releases a glowing review of it, while Lumix users are stressing out about it before using it. It's usually the opposite!

$3500 is a lot to ask for this camera. I really don't see a ton of reasons to go with it over the S5ii/X. I don't think it's a bad release, but that's not a very competitive price point. Still, I'd like to hear from folks who've used it once it hits real users hands.

Yeah, I was actually pretty impressed watching it. Low light wasn't great, but that's to be expected. There's still a lot to like about that camera.

Agreed. I don't know the overall health of the Lumix line. Maybe it's even as bad as people are saying. There have been some big whiffs for sure, like the LX100, the G100, and the G95, but I feel like a big part of people's criticism is that Lumix is "late to the party" on certain things and when they finally do release a camera that matches the competition, it's "too late" even though they enter a market at an extremely competitive price. I get that it is an adjustment, given that Lumix for so long lead the way when it came to progressing what mirrorless cameras are capable of, so it can be a disappointment in that regard, but I think overall we've hit a wall when it comes to advances. No one is really progressing much, outside of higher resolution. But Lumix is adding little quality of life improvements that the larger companies still haven't added, but they don't really get credit for them. I don't think it's unfair to say that 7 years is a long time to release a successor, but at the same time, would people be giving them the same grief if they were releasing a new model every two years for what is essentially a big firmware update like Sony does? Should they do that instead of supporting their cameras for years with new features via free firmware updates like they have? Would they have been better off if they flooded the market with so many different models? There needs to be some middle ground, and it'd be nice if Lumix found it. I agree with this, but also think it was inevitable. I don't know that they are regressing backwards creatively, as much as they hit the same wall most everyone else has. I do think the design criticism is the most valid, but I also think that too was inevitable. It makes sense that they'd try to unify the camera body designs like Sony has, as I'm sure it's much more profitable for them, especially as they try to enter the market at a more competitive price point. I've never had a problem with the S5ii X's body; I don't necessarily love it it, but I'm pretty indifferent. Where it matters most to me I find it to be pretty good; the buttons are where I'd naturally want them, and I have quick access to pretty much every setting I'd want to have quick access to. It really boils down to personal preference, so if you don't like it then I can see why it'd bother you that they are using it for most of their cameras now. That was a big reason why I didn't like Sony cameras, so I understand it.

This is actually a pretty decent video... The X1500 and X2000 are the same camera, just without the top handle. He compares/matches it with the S5ii X. It's pretty close. Just the low light isn't good.

I see so much negativity towards Lumix right now, but the S5ii X is my favorite camera I've ever used despite my criticisms of it, I was very impressed with the S1Rii when I used it for a day, and I think the S9 is a very compelling option especially if Lumix creates smaller lenses like they've said. I've even seen more YouTubers switching to Lumix cameras; while that isn't important to me, it's a sign that they are making some headway. I'm not saying people's criticisms aren't valid. If they aren't the right tool for you then they aren't the right tool, but people are writing off cameras based on specs instead of actually using them. Maybe these S1 successors will suck. It's very possible. But as of now, no one who has actually used them has said anything, nor have they made their way into the paying public's hands who can give an unbiased review.

Yeah, smaller sensors really don't bother me EXCEPT in the low light department. 1" was the minimum I was willing to go, given I would be shooting in a lot of lower light situations without professional lighting. If you WERE looking for shallow depth of field, it's obtainable with a little work. I tested dozens of camcorders when starting my streaming business in 2016. The DVX200 was by far my favorite, in terms of both use and image, but was just too expensive. So we went the Sony PXW-Z70 route, since we needed 4 and they were half the price of the DVX200 at the time. The DVX200 was an excellent camera, but it's $5000 price tag wasn't feasible for us. If I was going with a camcorder today I think I'd go with the DVX200 myself. It's everything I love about Lumix cameras, but in a camcorder body. Camcorders really haven't progressed much in the last 10 years. Even the newest models have specs that are essentially the same as the 10 year old DVX200, and most of those are in the $3000 and up price range. The biggest changes since have mostly been 4k60p (DVX200 has that), 10-bit, and more robust streaming options as that's the primary use for a lot of these cameras these days. Most of the "professional" camcorders in your price range that you can get new are the handycam style and don't really have many more buttons than you'd find on a mirrorless camera. That might not be so much of an issue though if your primary reason is just wanting that ability to power zoom. JVC also has some decent spec'd cameras for very reasonable prices new, but I'd definitely try them out before going that route, as the camcorders that I did try of theirs were very plasticky. I just wasn't convinced of they'd stand up to heavy use in a combat sports environment. Even the LS300 cinema camera they came out that I owned and loved was very plasticky. Plus their menus were straight out of the 90s! Frankly my experience starting that streaming company was the reason I ditched camcorders for mirrorless in my other video work. It was hard to justify paying a lot more for a camcorder that was less capable than mirrorless cameras that were half their price. Plus they were just more versatile, being able to change lenses. But boy do I miss those nice chunky camcorder bodies with all buttons on the side of the camera that you needed to change settings without having to dive into the menus. Not to mention the power zoom! Keep us posted and share your thoughts on what you do get!

It really is an excellent lens. I have one for every camera in my kit after initially thinking I'd never use it. It's by far the best kit lens I've ever used.

I too miss the ergonomics of the camcorder, though I've never found myself needing more buttons on my Lumix mirrorless cameras. I just miss them because I feel like they are easier and more practical the hold and use for video. I'd steer clear of any camera that has smaller than a 1" sensor, less because of depth of field and more because of low light. Those smaller sensors, even in newer cameras, just completely fall apart. They don't really even look that great in well lit situations. If you don't mind used, the Panasonic DVX200 is a great option. It's basically a GH5, complete with M43 sensor, in a camcorder body. When my friend used my GH5 as a b-cam to it, the footage was nearly identical. It looks like it goes for about $1600 used. Sony PXW-Z90 is a very nice camcorder with a 1" sensor. I built an entire streaming business off these kind of Sony camcorders. Goes for under $2100 used on MPB. For more advanced cameras: The Panasonic EVA1 also might be an option. Used options in Excellent condition on MPB go for about $2300. That has a Super 35 sensor and allows you to use EF and cine lenses. On the Sony side, the Sony PXW-FS5 II is under $1500 in like new condition on MPB. The Canon Cinema EOS C300 II is under $2200 in Excellent condition on MPB.

For me personally, after getting so much use out of the 20-60 kit lens, I'd have preferred something on the wider end like that with a constant aperture. Maybe a f4?

It looks pretty compact, which is nice, but yeah. Lumix did talk about making smaller lenses for the S9, perhaps this is one of them?

He's very dumb.

It's been forever since I've read up on it, but I'm pretty sure it was used because they were limited in how long they had access to locations. It was also an extremely ambitious film with a small budget. I wouldn't call using it to film an entire episode "very sparingly." But the point I'm making is, for the better part of 25 years people have been talking about how the industry is going to change every time "attainable" cameras are used to create a notable piece of work. "It's going to disrupt the industry." It never does, though. It's not that I disagree with your main point; most people wouldn't know the difference between something shot on a GH5 and an Alexa, assuming it's competently made. It's not like the millions of people watching the season finale of House that was filmed with a 5D Mark II noticed a difference. But that's not the reason most of the industry refuses to switch over to these more affordable, but very capable cameras.

I feel like every couple of years there's a film or television show that causes this same discussion to happen. I remember when 28 Days Later used the Canon XL-1, and when House used the Canon EOS 5D Mark II. Or more recently when The Creator used the FX3. Or even when Steven Soderbergh used the iPhone. I think we'll see people continue to buck the system and use "cheap" cameras to create high profile art, but I don't think that the rest of industry will change anytime soon for a variety of reasons, one of them being financial. The industry is content with the status quo, and changing it would impact everything from rental houses to folks who work full time on sets doing jobs that are dependent on film production continuing the way it does.

There really is no good that will come of this, at least not for 99% of us. There will of course be those who reap massive profits from the chaos, but it'll be at the expense of all of us and it'll be the same people who are already obscenely wealthy. A sizeable portion of this country wants fascism, even if they are too dumb enough to realize it. Arrest someone here legally for practicing free speech? Many will applaud it, more will shrug with indifference. Send someone wrongly to a prison in El Salvador? Again, people will applaud it while others, again, are indifferent. "Law and order" they proclaimed, yet they cheer on the government ignoring supreme court rulings and the pardoning of thousands of people who violently stormed the capitol building. The economy is on the brink of a recession. Some economists already think we're in one. Things are going to get a lot worse. It's not just that we're being run by a bunch of morons, it's that they're truly bad actors who want to cause irreparable damage to the federal government. The opposition party is incompetent and ineffectual. I have no faith that they'll put up an effective fight for the midterms, let alone in the next presidential election, assuming we have one. Shits so fucked.

Shits fucked.

So I got a chance to play with this today for a couple hours. My friend Zack bought it and has been using it for the last two weeks. He really likes it and from my limited time with it I too quite liked it. In the time I had with it it didn't overheat and Zack says he hasn't experienced overheating either. Mind you it's spring here in Vermont and the temperature today was 62 degrees (Fahrenheit) so I wouldn't expect it to. But I know some folks experienced overheating indoors in similar temperatures so I can't really say that it's not an issue, just that we recorded for about 80 minutes on an SD card and had no issue in that environment. I only filmed in 4K, as I'm not that interested in higher resolutions, so I can't really speak about anything else. Doing my own rolling shutter test (basically simulating how I'd film one of my sporting events) I found it to be more than acceptable. If you're whipping the camera around like a maniac I'm sure it stinks, but if you put even a little bit of effort into being steady it's really not an issue. Things I didn't like: I think the image is slightly better than the S5ii, but they're very close. I wish we could get something closer to the first generation of S cameras. Battery life is meh. While it didn't die it was very close, I think. I don't mind the body, but it doesn't feel very premium. I

5 years ago I'd have agreed with you, but honestly today, right now, I don't think it's possible to predict how Republicans will react. I mean, this is the same party that rallied around a convicted felon who has spent the last decade trying to destroy people's trust in government and its institutions, and whom from all accounts was happy when his supporters stormed the capitol. They are so entrenched in the Trump cult, it's hard to imagine them going against him. I really do think it's about time people stop giving the Republican party the benefit of the doubt.

I understand that there are those who are suffering much worse than we are, but it doesn't make the damage being done any less significant for those who are being hurt most. Besides, our kids might not being bombed but my nephew last month had a school drill on what to do if there's an active shooter. Shits pretty fucked up.

It seemed inevitable that they'd eventually charge more for upgrades. And as long as it's a reasonable price, I don't see a huge problem with it. As a potential user though I definitely hope it's not a subscription. I already have to pay for a sub for Photoshop (the alternatives just weren't working for me) and that genuinely pains me. I'd like to avoid having to pay a subscription fee for my NLE, too! As a Final Cut Pro user I keep expecting that Apple will charge for an upgrade, but I am guessing they're waiting for a major version update to do it.