newfoundmass

I don't think this makes it a cinema camera...

On 2/1/2026 at 3:48 PM, Mattias Burling said:

Hello, I hope everyone is well!

Even though I’m not really active on camera forums anymore, I frequently read the EOSHD blog and every now and then the forum, so I saw the thread and thought I would respond.

Because it wasn’t ”poof gone”, it was announced on the channel over a year ago and mentioned in the last three videos.

Before going into why, super flattered that this thread exist. I mean that.

So here are some thoughts on the matter and why I took it down.

Hobby vs Work

YouTube was never my job, just a hobby. So was video making and photography, in the beginning.

When starting the channel I was working as a producer after a couple of years as a radio/TV reporter. So I started the channel to keep my practical skills fresh. And to keep up with the development, which was huge at the time. The DSLR revolution, Blackmagic, cheaper editors etc.

Fast forward a couple of years and I started making more videos at work again. At the same time I pretty much lost all interest in doing it as a hobby. And actually canceled the channel.

Winston Churchill was definitely right in saying that work and hobbies should not be too similar. 

But what I had discovered was a passion for still photography, which I had pretty much no experience with. So I started making videos again.

That’s why my videos became very repetitive and short. I didn’t care about that part, I just wanted to display my stills work and get feedback, talk to the community, experiment with cameras and develop.

After a few years I became a good enough photographer that my new employer noticed and just like that I was shooting stills professionally all the time. And I still do (I work in marketing and PR). It’s a huge bonus in my field and if you are good at it you will never be out of work.

So photography also became less and less of a hobby.

Instead I found other hobbies. They where things that for example got me out into nature, so photography tagged a long a while, as a secondary activity. But eventually it faded. It was also nice to do things and not share it with people. I know I probably could have a very successful channel by making videos about my current hobbies, and even make some money. But I never really wanted a channel for the sake of a channel. And always had a full time job.

The fact is that at no point would I had been able to live of my channel, not even at the peak. Even with sponsors it was never more that a regular salary (in my field and country). But as long as it was a hobby and I was glad to do it, it was a welcome addition to finance camera gear.

 

Time

At the same time as my channel started to feel less fun and other hobbies started taking my time, I started a family. So.. you get the idea: full time job + family + 2-3 hobbies = no YouTube.

Upkeep 

So why take it down, why not leave it for the community? I did..  at first.

Like some of you pointed out, the YouTube crowd in the photography/video space is generally nice and positive. That is my experience as well.

Early on I learned that a good way of keeping the trolls away was to be present. Respond and engage. Trolls are usually idiots or cowards, so they don’t like getting push back.

But once I stopped making videos, views and comments obviously went down. But the trolls started coming back. Not so much after me, and I don’t care about that. But agains the community. The people commenting started being nasty towards each other.

I felt a responsibility to moderate, which was annoying. That’s when the thought about simply removing it started to grow.

It wasn’t an impuls. It was an internal debate that went on for months. And the issue grew much much larger than a couple of trolls. 

I started thinking about five years ahead, 10 years, 30 years..

This post is already way too long so I won’t go into all of it. But I think you get the idea when I say:

Privacy or when the content no longer reflects the creator. Digital minimalism, control over one’s narrative, inactive or outdated content. Risk of misuse of content  due to me not checking the terms updates. Closure.

 

So there is a looong ramble 🙂

 

To keep in spirit of the forum I can charge my current gear for pro work 🙂

For the longest time I used the EOS-R for 75% of all my work and the R5 (rental)  for the rest. It wasn’t mine but my employer told me to buy whatever I wanted. Paired it with a 28, 35 and 70-200. 70/30 stills/video.

 

The R5 is peak camera imo.

 

Today is a little different. I started working for a new company about a year ago and again was told to buy what I needed. I would have bought the R5 without hesitation if it wasn’t for the Sigma 35-150/2-2.8.. I just had to have it. So I ordered the Nikon Z6iii. It’s not as good overall as the R5 for me and what I like in a tool camera. But it’s 90% there. And coupled with that lens it’s becomes on par.

 

//MB

Thank you for letting us know! I'm glad you're well! I do wish the content stayed up, as it was still useful, but I understand your reasoning. At the end of the day, it was YOUR content and you could do what you wanted with it!

I hope that you check in from time to time and thank you for all your input over the years! And congrats on the family! 

7 hours ago, Andrew - EOSHD said:

If anything good comes out of this, less dependance and less monopolies would be a great thing.

[UK switching to Chinese tech in 3,2,1...]

It's never going to happen, but the ideal scenario would be every developed country investing in the tech space to create more competition overall. As countries pull away from the United States (and rightfully so) they might look towards China, but that's just replacing one bad actor with another. It's just hard to think of playing catch up.

6 minutes ago, Andrew - EOSHD said:

I struggle myself with using US services at the moment given that our data could soon (and might be already) in the hands of a neo-nazi government.

In terms of the ethics of it, I'm also disappointed with the behaviour of the American CEOs and how they have brown nosed the nazi President like a bunch of pathetic losers.

It leaves a very sour taste in the mouth and not just for them.

It does make me uneasy paying for YouTube Premium, Google Gemini, Apple iCloud, Adobe Premiere and Netflix, actually it makes me more than uneasy, it makes me sick.

But unfortunately our leaders in Europe barely know how to use MS Paint, and have over the years completely dropped the ball on tech. So there are no decent alternatives, not really.

That said, the UK & EU gets a bad rap for what it's created. The best of European technology is the most complex in the world from ASML and Zeiss. Without their EUV lithography machines, TSMC, Nvidia and Apple would not have their fancy chips.

They'd be reliant on Intel fabs and old processes.

Any more funny business from the US admin and the Dutch should fucking remind them of that.

Also the British invented the WWW, RISC architecture for CPUs and smartphones, not to mention ARM. We've not done so badly, we've just failed to commercialise stuff properly and let the American venture capitalists snatch it away from us.

If it is political and that's why he's taken the channel down, he's missed a big opportunity to publish a video saying so, and directing us to his new channel on a different and more ethical Tube.

It's a real shame just to pull the plug entirely without even so much as a goodbye.

But then, maybe he has good reasons to... I don't know. I just rather hope he's ok.

Yes, it's very difficult right now not to feel dirty. I've always been pretty far left politically, and as such pretty critical of the style of greedy capitalism that has won out, but today there is virtually no ethical way to do much of anything because EVERYTHING is wrapped up in some pretty deplorable shit. The way the tech companies especially kneeled to this administration, it just feels dirty to even use their services but it's virtually impossible not to. 

Everything uses at least something from Google or Amazon to operate and run. Look at how many sites and services become unusable when Amazon Web Services goes down, for example. The internet itself grinds almost to a complete halt.

It's such a bleak time. 

I hope someone is able to reach out and check on him, and let him know that he's missed. He was a rare gem on these forums and YouTube; he was just someone that enjoyed sharing his passion for video and photography. He wasn't trying to sell anything, or get free stuff, he just loved sharing. There was a purity to that, and it's severely lacking these days. 

That's really unfortunate. His Vimeo is still up, and his Instagram too, though they haven't been updated recently. His content output decreased a lot once Gunpowder passed, but he had already been less active as I think he became more and more disillusioned with the entire YouTube/Filmmaking/Photography scene.

I hope he is well and creating the art that he loves.

This is how they act knowing cameras are on them, filming every thing they do, and with witnesses.

Imagine what they are doing when there aren't any cameras fixed on them or people watching. What horrors are they inflicting on the people they've locked up?

There are still people here in the US who support this. Those are people we'll never be able to get through. I wan't to think it will get better, but I fear it will need to get a lot worse before that happens.

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. 

5 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

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.

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. 

On 12/25/2025 at 10:28 AM, BTM_Pix said:

OK, we open a  DJI drone shop in one of the Canadian border towns and Americans come across, buy one but only take the controller back with them.

As soon as they are over the border they message us and we switch their drone on, put it on the roof of the shop and then they fly the fucker over the border themselves.

 

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

double post sorry!

11 hours ago, Ninpo33 said:

Honest question, Do you really think people would notice if you center cropped your 4k or higher 16x9 videos to vertical for social media? Like the loss of resolution is that bad when viewed on instagram or facebook after compression? It can help a bit for framing in my experience but it feels like companies are marketing the social media angle as an easy feature that’s already built in and people are drinking the kool aid. 

My argument for open gate is really the benefits for anamorphic shooting. Cropping for instagram from a 4k 16x9 file has always been fine for me. 

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.

34 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Then I'd also like to ask, what exactly is the "have to" part of it.  Like, y'all can't get paid and/or make a living without vertical videos?  I'm not trying to be obtuse in my responses.  I don't do things for social media because I really don't want to.  Dabbled for a month back during the pandemic and just decided, "Nah, not for me."  My career is winding down so I'm not chasing that shit.  So ... I legit don't know what's going on for a "have to" to be part of the career calculus.

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.

33 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

What game, tho'?

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.

4 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Indeed.

Attention spans get ever shorter and if you don’t play the game, you are not in the game.

Whether you like playing said game is irrelevant, - just a necessary evil.

Being able to make 2 forms of content relatively easily from one source is the quickest (and cheapest) way to achieving this and why Lumix cameras especially excel, - multiple frame markers.

I have mine set up for 1:2.4 + 9:16 with a 75% blackout and it’s 👍👍

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

1 hour ago, FHDcrew said:

So valid haha…and I remember 8 years ago not very many people even cared about the 5k open gate on the gh5. Now a camera is “so useless” if it doesn’t have what the gh5 has had for YEARS…the marketing agencies (oops I mean YouTubers) deem it necessary for clicks. 

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. 

1 hour ago, zlfan said:

are they outdated?

which one do you prefer?

pros and cons

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. 

4 hours ago, J S H said:

Agreed completely on your assessment of the image characteristics. I truly appreciate the performance of classic anamorphic adapters and am happy that they are coming down in price. I just picked up a baby Kowa Anamorphic 8 2X for cheap and it's a jewel.

A few examples of what I consider ideal performance below. First three are the ZIA 1.5x with an older Leica 50 Elmar collapsible, which is a tiny and wonderful combo that just covers full frame 3:2. Second is the baby hypergonar 1.75x with a Voigtlander 75 2.5, which also covers full frame but is a bit more muted (although this adapter can be fickle against the light sometimes). 

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. 

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yet the "it ain't selling" problem is really concerning... It's as if the market has gone a bit batty.

All the stills people are buying the a7r V instead and all the video people hanker after an FX3.

So the FX2 sat in-between the two suffers from that dreaded "middle" failure because people are unable to snap out of their binary thinking.

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.