newfoundmass

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are they outdated?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They are outdated in that they are older cameras that don't have all the bells and whistles of the most modern camera released but in terms of image quality, I think every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. 

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.

14 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

I've been rocking 2 secondhand S5s all this year, mainly with my Super Takumars (I've got the 20-60 kit for when I'm feeling lazy) and I've yet to touch the edges of their capabilities.

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. 

6 hours ago, Chrille said:

Somehow strange that they did not put this technology in the FX2. 

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

36 minutes ago, hoodlum said:

Apparently, the A7V AF is struggling with 3rd party lenses.  When Sony was asked about the issue, their response as “We do no guarantee compatibility”.  Maybe Sony has dumbed down the AF for the 3rd party lenses.  Something to watch.  
 

 

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.

10 hours ago, EduPortas said:

I'd lime to know why the GH7 was used for this particular movie/documentary.

Practical reasons regarding size? Cost? Absolute technical image quality?

We just don't know.

I also think camera choice is the most important reason any creator is going to make, aside from script. If the piece doesn't look right no one will watch it, even if it's Citizen Kane Part Deux. That's why some Hollywood creative trios are almost set in stone: director-writer-photographer. 

If I go to an IMAX I expect to see something spectacular. If I go to the cinema for an indie doc, my expectation changes. If I turn on my TV and watch channel 6 I pretty much expect soap opera visuals.

 

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. 

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The gear doesn't matter thing is so boring, it does matter and you can't shoot much without it.

The GH1 opened a door, because the aesthetic on offer was very different to the small chip digital camcorders at the time or Mini DV.

It opened the door to all those interchangeable lenses, and there's a big difference in look between these lenses let alone between a GH1 and a Mini DV cam.

Actually you can tell the Magellan is going for a certain look too with the GH7 - it isn't Hollywood, it's documentary style and looks quite clinical in places with a deep DOF, which they didn't have to do but the Lumix lenses are like that and it works well.

So choice of gear, informs the look of what you're making and does matter greatly.

The difference in image quality between a GH6 and GH7 doesn't matter quite so much...

But the format of camera, and era of camera does.

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. 

On 9/7/2025 at 1:11 AM, ArashM said:

Canon Should try any current Lumix camera for hand held IBIS work. They are very good and there is a good portion of what I shoot now where I don't have to be on a gimbal!

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. 

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

I love the trend of designing a slightly less ergonomic mirrorless with a flat top, and calling in a cinema camera.

Was thinking the same thing, haha

11 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Here is an example where it is quite obvious. (With the s1ii vs blackmagic) the skintone difference is massive. While on the blackmagic I would not need to change the skintones at all on the s1ii it would need some tweaking to get rid off the red skintones. Ok many clients prolly won't notice it or would complain about it. But I sure do see it + panasonic has the most different colour science of sony. Which at the moment is the market leader over here. And 1 client specific told me they liked colour science of sony the most, prolly because the market is flooded with sony footage and that is what they are used too. (Was on a shoot with a mix of panasonic and sony camera's next to each other, so we had to grade the panasonic footage to the sony look :') )

 

Isn't all your personal issues with the image moot when you factor in the ability to add your own lut, thus giving you the color you want SOOC?

5 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Looks like a great camera, but what prevents me buying it is the colour science. It looks worse then s5ii, and s5ii was already worse then the s5. 

The skintones look horrific magenta with red blotches. Which is the biggest problem with this camera imo. Sure you could fix it with some post work. But why would I buy this camera when there are numerous options out there that dont have this problem. And saves me time each project.

I've never really felt like the color science was bad, though I do think the S5 had a special image, but even if I did, with real time lut you can pretty much nail it right in camera after making your own lut, negating any issues one might have with color science.

It is a very nice camera from my experiences with it, though I've only used it a half dozen times. I actually just texted my buddy who owns it and asked if it had overheated yet, since it's now the hottest time of year here in Vermont, and he said it hasn't and he has had it out in the sun on 90 degree days. He doesn't do super long takes though like I would as an event shooter.