newfoundmass

18 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Actually, I was making exactly the opposite point from the one you made it sound as though I was making : D when I mentioned Lumix alongside the Oly case ; )

The other point is simply that one lens isn’t necessarily the same as another ; )) While much also depends on the way the operator handles the camera, a lens with optical stabilisation can make a night-and-day difference... speaking as someone who uses glass with and without it every day on the FX series :- )

Sorry if I misread!

1 hour ago, kye said:

Have you ever used any of the newer breed of action cameras that have the ultra-hyper-giga-maxxed-stabilisation modes?  I haven't, but they look basically like magic, stabilising people running and biking etc which is well beyond the OIS / IBIS / EIS territory on normal cameras.  It would be fascinating if someone made a normal camera with a mode like that where it takes a large crop into the lens but delivers that kind of stabilisation.  I can imagine using a wider prime, like a 16mm or 24mm with that mode to grab shots that are 2x cropped but smooth like butter.

I have! And it's TOO smooth for my tastes. It's very impressive, but I still want some natural handheld movement. It helps with the immersion. It's why I have never used a gimbal for the ringside action. The biggest issue with action cameras, even the new ones, is the low light just isn't great in most of these venues that don't have professional lighting rigs set up. 

4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

The lens can also play a relevant role in order to each the result you intend or need : ) even though, Oly or Panasonic may overcome it indeed :- )

No lens is going to help stabilize running enough on any of the current Sony cameras to watch Lumix IBIS unless you use Catalyst Browse which just isn't an efficient option for 3 hour long events. 

On 7/25/2026 at 11:56 AM, Emanuel said:

@newfoundmass@MrSMWFX30's stabilization is not necessarily bad at all... it requires a proper operator! : P Maybe @kye is serious up there, maybe not ; ) I am :- )

For fast action sports where you're moving quickly it's just not sufficient from what I've seen. If you're largely standing still I imagine it's sufficient but when you're running around a wrestling ring, not so much. 

My use case though is admittedly unique. 

17 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I’d have no problem flipping back to Sony myself, but it would be the FX3A and FX30’s plus A7RV, all used, because all of that kit is more than good enough for me.

The FX30s are still really great values. I realistically could get away with three of those and be set for the next half decade at least. The biggest issue I'd have is just the poor IBIS. IBIS is hugely important for my work, even more than auto focus and all the other comforts people wanted over the years. 

That's what has kept me in the Lumix camp. I plan to switch out one or both of my S5s for a S5II or S5II X here soon. Amazing IBIS and really good auto focus... no real reason to switch. 

7 hours ago, stephen said:

Sony FX5 has the same or slightly modified sensor from Sony A7R VI. Interesting. 
FX5 would be a tempting proposition if you buy a new camera for commercial work from a local shop. Difference with FX3A is about 1000 $/E. 
As others already mentioned same FX3 sensor is available in the form of A7S III and Sony ZV-E1 for much less in the second hand market.
Difference in picture quality between the FX3 sensor and FX5 one in real world shoots will be minimal. Not to mention that I can monitor and control current Sony cameras from a quality monitor like Portkey LH5P or a smartphone or use cheap external EVF and have all the tools for comfortable and quality work. 
Thanks but no thanks, not for me at this price.

That's kind of the thing: today you can get as good of an image now from a sub $2000 camera, and that's not even including the used market. 

It's not a bad camera at all. It's just, $5000 is a lot right now in this economy. Outside of the Sony hardcores who are constantly upgrading to the latest Sony camera, this is a hard sell I think. Honestly, if I'm already shelling out over $5k, I'd probably go all the way and get the Sony FX6 for the more professional body and features, like internal ND, even if it is missing some of the other things the FX5 has. Plus I think you'll still get hired more having an FX6 than you will having an FX5.

I will say, it's funny seeing all the YouTubers who jumped to Lumix with the S1II all the sudden jumping back. Guessing Sony cut a bigger check?

Great camera, $5k these days is a lot though. Like big picture it's not, but these days there's so many options out there in every price range new and used that it's hard to justify dropping that much money.

Happy with my Lumix set up.

If it had a decent camera I'd actually be interested. But the ones I've seen will all end up as e-waste eventually.

If it took photos (I don't really care if it takes video) that looked good on social media I'd be very interested though.

That's such a bummer, re: the overheating. 

I've been eyeing the original S1R for stills. Was hoping he used price would go down more, but it hasn't moved much in the last year. 

3 hours ago, kye said:

To add to the above, Matti Haapoja (perhaps the king of pixel peeping "cinematic" YT) uploaded a bunch of videos that were edited in 1080p (and upscaled to 4K for export) and he tracked all the comments and not a single person commented that the videos looked different or whatever.

In a blind real-world test literally not one of the pixel-peeping techno-fetishist pedants could tell.

Of course you'd still want a good 1080p image, some 1080p cameras were better than others.

The added bonus of this approach is you only need 25% of the computing power to edit it.  Or if you go with h264 instead of h265 then it's even less!

4K is nice, but I still insist that most of us aren't watching on screens big enough to really get the full benefit of it. I can see very little difference on my 55-inch 4K TV between 1080p and 4K, except on YouTube, but that's because of the significant bitrate bump YouTube's 4K has over its 1080p. That's another reason to upload in 4K instead of 1080p even if you film in 1080p.

When watching Blu-rays, though, the difference is almost non-existent unless you literally walk right up to the TV and are a few inches away from it.

Now imagine how little difference there is when watching on your phone or a tablet!

Yeah, honestly anything that has come out in the last 10 or so years is more than good enough for YouTube. Even if it shoots 1080p, if you edit and export in 4K it will look great.

My nephew has started a small little vlog with my old GH3. That's a 14 year old camera with really good 1080p and it looks great still. He likes using a "real" camera, so that's why he uses it over his iPhone, but he could definitely get away with using just his phone.

4 hours ago, srgkonev said:

thanks guys! Really appreciate the answers! Yeah, I'll probably will focus on getting mic and lighting setups firsts 

These days the camera is the least imporant thing, since we all own phones that shoot very good video with the right lighting.

Something like this might be useful, to help you frame yourself so you can use your main cameras instead of the selfie camera on your phone.

https://www.smallrig.com/Wireless-Video-Monitor-for-Phone-Vlog-Kit-4851.html?skuId=1902205216988602369&utm_source=google&utm_medium=shopping&utm_campaign={us_roasl}&utm_content&utm_term=1902205216988602369&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22986129310&gbraid=0AAAAA9ksdxlR0rKJm8KPUZEfnds4FA25H&gclid=CjwKCAjwidXQBhAZEiwA4egw6IMJP7OXRfSob5wBL8w-tVSe1oUTWPIYilNm1fLnTWsIBMzdbzi5RRoCELoQAvD_BwE

Honestly your phone is more than good enough for this. Get one of the budget wireless mics that connects to your phone and you're good to go. 

Invest in a camera once you know whether you enjoy and are committed to it. 

This looked and sounded really good until they said there was no IBIS. I suppose this makes sense as they emphasized this is targeted for photographers, but I do hope they release a video focused model that includes IBIS because I would love a genuinely pocketable video camera like this. 

22 hours ago, EduPortas said:

 

I agree. It would be unwise to try and gatekeep it. Personal tastes factor in and everyone has the right to produce or consume whatever artistic product feels right.

Just to clarify, it's not what appeals to "me", it's just the concept of art in general. There are canons and 1000s of books written about this subject.

 I'm just saying art should be a category reserved for something truly special, epoch-making, just like the ancient murals discovered thousands of years after they were drawn you mentioned. I've seen the larger examples of these ancient cave paintings in Europe 4 to 6 meters wide drawn 10 or more meters above cavern floors and they are truly awe-inspiring. Anyone entering those places will never be the same thanks to that experience. It's soul-moving and deeply spiritual.

I'm not sure a 30 second reel has the same profound impact on the soul though LOL

Why should we limit what we consider art, though? Is that not gatekeeping, saying one thing is art but something else isn't? Going back to cave drawings, do you think the folks who made those thought they were creating something that would stand the test of time, or do you think they were just expressing themselves using the medium available to them, with zero regard for people who would later find them to be soul-moving and spiritual? Art is art, regardless of the impact or scale. Just some art holds more value than other art.

Also, if we are judging content and it's merits on the profound impact it has had on people, for better or worse, there are a lot of 30 second reels that have had an enormous impact on society. My old snow plow guy, who never even graduated high school, thinks he knows more about vaccinations than medical professionals because he watched a couple 30 second TikTok reels that told him they are bad. He also thought Donald Trump was going to free thousands of children from sex trafficking, that Joe Biden and the deep state stole the 2020 election, and that COVID was a man made disease meant to depopulate the earth and enslave the rest of us.

30 minutes ago, EduPortas said:

 

Sorry friend, but in 100 years neither G.U.'s videos nor your doodles will be interpreted as art pieces.

The first aspect of any artistic endeavor is of course the personal emotion or intent, as Andrew said. But that's the bare minimum. It's all uphill from there (technique, movement behind it, people you know, trends followed by the masses, etc.).

That's a less than 0.01% chance of actually making something the world will remember, generally by channeling a huge amount of personal pain into something concrete.

And it's ok. That's why artists are so special and, generally, tortured souls.

I mean, the people who drew simple cave drawings probably didn't expect people to view their doodles as art pieces thousands of years later, but here we are.

Gatekeeping art is silly because it's not just wrong to do but its such a futile thing to do. Art isn't just what people will remember, it is expression! And it's all around us, from beautiful architecture, to statues, to murals, to kids drawing on the sidewalk with chalk. It's in the biggest music halls, all the way to the local dive bar or coffee shop hosting a singer-songwriter who just likes to sing his songs on a Friday night to a couple dozen listening ears. It's in the giant cineplexes playing the biggest films, to the small theaters that show foreign or low budget films, all the way to the phone someone is holding on the bus plays a random YouTube or TikTok video.

Not all of it has the same value or meaning, but it's all still art. Don't try and gatekeep it, or try and tell someone that what they created isn't art just because it doesn't appeal to you.

1 hour ago, Andrew - EOSHD said:

It's a really interesting quote and comes down to how much of your hand and heart you're willing to delegate to a machine that doesn't know what art is, but the paradox is it has absorbed and computed into numbers nearly every piece of art in the world ever made.

Interesting times to say the least.

I doubt it's about money, I think his existing camera channel was doing superbly well in terms of bringing in the cash.

I really just do think he's had enough creatively, because he built a creative dead-end for himself.

YouTube revenue is probably down compared to the highs of a couple years ago, but I imagine he's still doing pretty good between it and the deals he has, plus whatever revenue he was generating via luts, merch and stuff. A lot of that content will generate revenue in perpetuity, so he'll still be making ad revenue off it for as long as it's up. 

A month ago he released a video ranking the color accuracy of every camera brand. It has, to date, gotten almost 100,000 views. He could, realistically, continue creating content like that forever and ever. He has decided not to. So I agree it probably has a lot less to do with financial considerations and more to do with just not enjoying the box he put himself in. And honestly, good for him. Hopefully he'll do something that is more fulfilling. I am happy for anyone who decides "fuck this, I just don't want to do this anymore" and steps away to do something else that makes them happy. With the way the world (and the economy) is going, most of us are going to have to work until the day we die, so we might as well enjoy what we're doing while we can.

17 minutes ago, Andrew - EOSHD said:

Everything is art, that's why you can stick a urinal in a gallery and suddenly it's art.

With YouTube what matters to me is the intent of the artist - are they doing it to shill a few cameras and get cozy with marketing, or are they doing it to further their aspirations in filmmaking and trying to build a community of other artists around it?

Shilling a few cameras and getting cozy with Jack from PR is an art.

But it's on the same level as cinematography is it?

Exactly. Not all art is equal, but I think it's the last thing we should be trying to gate keep. Art, and the creativity that fuels it, is the ultimate form of expression and something NO ONE can take away from us. Just not all of us are as creative as others, but that's okay!

14 hours ago, EduPortas said:

 

There's a place for in-depth analysis like G.U.'s channel. It's useful.

But it's kind of difficult to place it at the "art" level when he himself distanced his channel from more opinionated spaces by offering a "just the facts" approach and basically zero emotion or personal aspects of his life related to the object being reviewed.

Not every piece of digital content is art. I'd say it's less than 0.1% right now. 

I think where we disagree is on the term "art." I think doodling on a piece of paper is technically art. It's not at the same level as the Mona Lisa, but neither are the goofy songs I sing to my dogs equal to "Stairway to Heaven." It's all still art, though, some is just more creative (and better) than the other stuff.

10 hours ago, EduPortas said:

 

That's the definition of artist.

Clearly, G.U. is not one. It's not a sin, though. Not everyone has the sensibility to become one.

Mosts artists create and never share their work with people outside of their immediate friends and family. Others create and share it on the micro level, simply wishing to share it but not make a big thing of it (example: folks that play at the local bar but have no interest in recording and releasing music.)

I think as a whole we are far too judgmental about art and the things people create. It's okay to be critical, but at the end of the day, we should encourage people who create anything at all, especially as AI creeps into the picture. People don't just use AI for the convenience, but because of their own insecurities. I know too many local businesses who have started using AI because of the belief that it looks better than what they were creating themselves. I'm certainly guilty of thinking to myself, when looking at something a local business owner clearly made themselves, "that's awful." What I wouldn't do though to go back to seeing that stuff over the soulless, gross AI slop that they are all switching to. At least it had personality and you knew someone put their time and effort into creating it, even if it wasn't great.

8 hours ago, Andrew - EOSHD said:

Exactly, he chose to play the PR game instead with Sony and a few others, chose to focus 100% of his enthusiasm on YouTube studio tours and YouTube gear setups, there was never any interest evident in filmmaking or photography, which is strange as these are usually the thing people get most excited about!

Even more strange was even after so many years of using the gear, he couldn't seem to shoot decent footage - which for me, shows that he never practiced it. Even if you're not naturally talented you can still become pretty proficient at aiming a lens.

What also kills passion is having no immediate community to engage over it with (in real life) and it all being online. It might be that he's boxed into a clinical suburban environment with his wife and doesn't have that environment of fellow camera nerd enthusiasts around him where he lives, it only exists online.

I don't know Gerald outside of what he presented to us, which is to say that I don't know him much at all because we all present what we want people to see online. But with Gerald and other content creators, the algorithms and audience steers you towards what it wants from you. Gerald might naturally just have been someone interested in clinical tests of cameras and not had an interest in being more creative, but I always wondered if part of the reason he (and others in his position) never explored more artistic expression in his videos was the fear that it would be torn to shreds.

Sitting in the middle of four walls with a tripod, camera and teleprompter is safe. Creating something MORE and sharing it with folks makes you vulnerable, especially if you've already established yourself in a niche. "The nerdy long form camera review guy that you all put so much faith into fell on his face when trying to actually create something!" Just putting yourself out there at all you open yourself up to so much unkindness, let alone when you actually share something that is deeply personal and vulnerable. 

As I've gotten older, and experienced how shitty people can make you feel for just engaging in your passion, I've become more empathetic and understanding. I think it's important that while being critical we still remember these folks are human. 

1 hour ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

A close relative illustrates user manuals for a high end audio equipment company. Not my cup of tea but it certainly qualifies as art.

 

Another good example. I'm think we are all guilty of minimizing things because they don't appeal to us. To a certain audience Gerald's reviews were incredibly engaging. 

1 hour ago, Aussie Ash said:

well what do you think of these sorts of reviews  ?

Runs for 13 minutes and no examples of photos or video taken with the lens

 

 

It's not what I want out of a review, but I'm sure someone enjoyed it. 

23 minutes ago, EduPortas said:

 

I'm sure the owner of this site would object to that statement LOL

Camera reviews are not art. They are content.

There's a huge gap that exemplifies why this sort of youtuber just fades away. At no time during the past 10 years did I see one of his reviews and said "wow, now that's art right there". There's no soul, just data. Clicked on a video, saw it, and 5 minutos later forgot all about it.

It's NOT his fault, it's just he's made from a different material than artists. I repeat, it's NOT a deficiency, it's just his way of presenting his videos: cold, clinical, analytical, operational.

Curiously enough, his pal from Camera Conspiracies has had some very artistic videos where he actually shows some soul. His technique is dreadful, but you can see HIM and his EMOTIONS through the video.

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Content is art. Not all art is equal, but it's still art. 

It's like arguing that the people who write instruction manuals or textbooks aren't writers. They are, but that doesn't mean they're Stephen King. 

2 hours ago, EduPortas said:

That's bc the man is not an artist nor a journo.

He's just some dude who speaks English (this is relevant) and got really passionate about cameras during The Great MILC Video Expansion of 2014-2024.

Since this is a hobby for him and not a job, the passion just ran out.

 

 

I mean, to the extent he creates videos he's an "artist" even if it's not art that you enjoy. It's not the most creative, but it is what it is. He COULD have explored more creative artistic expression, especially as he had the means to do it given the access to equipment (both owned and loaned) he had, but he chose not to. 

It's always strange how these folks always end up hating the box they put themselves into when they never had to put themselves in that box to begin with. The only thing stopping people like Gerald from CREATING fulfilling art is themselves. 

Having been a viewer of his since the start, he DID start out being passionate about cameras. But his transition from a guy who clearly loved cameras into a soulless content creator who acted as a promotional arm of the camera manufacturers wasn't something that happened overnight, nor was it something that his viewers didn't voice in the comments. It was a choice that he made, and inevitably it was going to end like this. 

There are so many people who started out around the same time who didn't put themselves into that box. Whether it was young Simon Cade/DSLRGuide or the Film Riot guys, just the first two to come to mind from the OLD days who are still around, they all started out with a similar trajectory but used their YouTube channels as a launch pad into creating art that they wanted. That isn't to say you can't criticize what they ARE creating today, but they are out there creating and, from the looks of things, enjoying it. Their work with cameras didn't just stay within the four walls of an apartment or house, but out in the real world, where they could express and create. 

I genuinely hope that Gerald finds something that he is passionate about and creates stuff that makes him feel good. Everyone deserves to be happy and fulfilled by what they are doing.

14 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I think laying off 23% of it’s workforce has had a lot to do with the share price rising.

Those finance vampires love people losing their jobs.

Yeah. I'm not saying that releasing something different might not help raise stock prices, but canning nearly a quarter of their staff probably had a lot to do with it. I don't think your average investor, even one for GoPro, knows all that much about the camera market overall to know the significance.