Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by newfoundmass

  1. 29 minutes ago, herein2020 said:


    For an interview I would just shoot in 8 bit. I would much rather 8bit than lose the ability to punch in and recompose in post. I shot tons of content with the GH5's 8bit and clients never cared or noticed. My C200 also shoots 8bit and somehow it looks just as good as the 10bit out of the S5.

    Agreed. I can't imagine you would need to push the colors around very much for interviews, so 10 bit shouldn't be necessary. 

    I love that 10 bit is becoming regular but I think people overestimate how much they really need to use it. 

  2. 1 hour ago, timapple said:

    Andrew, you're a smart guy.  So I guess you're just pretending not to know the real reason.  Welcome to the WOKE SOCIETY.  No one is allowed to be different anymore.  Free speech?  Not any more!   Still believe in biology?  You MUST be canceled, then. We've come full circle and Galileo is to be locked up in the tower again for daring to be a rebel....a CORRECT rebel at that.  So even though the FP and FP-L are in fact amazing cameras we live in a world of little snowflalkes.... but snowflakes that must ALL BE ALIKE.... even though everyone knows no two are alike.  Boys can be girls, girls can be boys, but don't you dare praise a camera for being unique.  It's the UNwoke camera.  Welcome to Alice in Wonderland where things are backwards and upside-down and common sense makes no sense to so many.  I ran out and purchased an FP months ago in large part due to your excellent review and praise and it's one of the coolest little cameras I've ever owned. It can be a stripped-down convertible or a laced-up high performance racer depending on how I kit it out.  Appreciate your defense of the little guy but they will never "get" it.  "They weren't listening then, they're not listening now.  Perhaps they never will."  - Don McLean

    You really turned this into a rant about trans folks?

  3. 9 hours ago, rdouthit said:

    For those of us that like to revise posts after the fact for clarity... the 5 minute lock on articles here is really frustrating. Now I have grammatical errors that will live on forever. Above should say "Even if my forum posts AREN'T as comprehensive as they should be."

    Thanks for clarifying. My friend is going through a nightmare right now because Russian trolls have filed takedown notices on a documentary he self funded. They'll falsely claim a clip is being used illegally, which pulls down his video for the 30 or whatever days they have to file legal actions after he refutes it. Then when the video is finally restored another troll will do it all over again. It has happened 3 times so far, all because it documents Russian atrocities in Syria. It has made it pretty much impossible for him to recoup the tens of thousands of dollars he spent making it and he has no recourse other than going through YouTube's process since he's not an outlet like VICE that can reach out to YouTube easily and put an end to it. 

  4. On 3/31/2021 at 1:38 AM, rdouthit said:

    I've issued successful strikes against other content creators with 10 to 4M subs that used any of my content (in one case, it was a 1-second clip.) Attribution is irrelevant. Fair Use doesn't allow a creator to use content (with or without attribution) to illustrate their video, unless the video is in some way commentary about the creator of the clip.

    You were correct until the "creator of the clip" part. Clips can be used for commentary/editorial and satirical purposes as long as you're using it in the proper context. 

    I can understand being annoyed that someone used a clip of something you created and didn't ask for permission, but please do not abuse the system that is used to report legitimate violations of copyright. As someone that has quite a few friends that are documentarians, I know how often they have to deal with people doing that despite it falling under fair use. 

  5. On 3/25/2021 at 1:49 PM, Ben J. said:

    I've seen companies use clips from youtubers in their videos many times. I wanted to know if, as long as you give credit to the youtuber, its okay to use part of their video in yours? I know there are things like fair use, and this would be used for a product video but it is also sharing awareness as well (though mainly, a product video).  Is it legal to show a youtuber's work as long as you give them credit?  I wanted to use a clip from this youtuber because it show the danger of not wearing a mask when playing airsoft.

    This is by no means professional legal advice, however if you're using the content in an editorial manner it falls under fair use. That doesn't mean you shouldn't at least try to get permission.

    Even if you are within your right to use it they can file a takedown notice with YouTube. When that happens you have two options: accept it or refute it. If you refute it YouTube will inform the other party and they'll then need to go through the legal system to prove their case. 

  6. 23 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

    I would rather wait for compressed internal RAW then have to use a external recorder on a mirrorless camera. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of using a smaller camera in the fist place.

    Really surprised they didn’t put something faster than SD in the S1H. Kinda of a cripple move when the S1/S1R has CFX. They could have at least down some form of RAW for the camera. 

    I think they went the SD route because there was some complaints about not having dual SD for the S1. I also think the S1H was targeted towards an audience that wasn't too keen on spending 50-100% more on new storage. 

    I agree though re: external raw. I'm glad it exists but it's probably not something I'd use often. 

  7. 57 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

    Let's just keep it going... sell your m43 stuff NOW! You don't want to lose all that money you put into your "investment". We all know that those once great images that everyone liked in the past will only be considered garbage in the future. It's all about the camera.

    Why must we always respond in extremes? The camera is the least of my concerns, it's the SYSTEM that I take into consideration more than anything. A camera is like a car, it immediately loses value the second you buy it. That's something you have to accept. 

    If you don't view your cameras, lenses, audio gear, etc. as investments that's OK, but I do because they play a vital role in how I make the bulk of my living. For me, running a small business, it does not make sense to remain invested in a system that isn't going to be around in 5 years. I'm jealous of anyone that doesn't have to take that into consideration, but I do because I'd like to maximize what I can get out of one investment when it's time to make a new one. 

    Like I said in a previous post, I'd be happy with the GX85, G85 and GH5 kit I've put together if I didn't have to worry about my M43 gear losing value. If a lens I paid $950 for ends up being worth $200 5 years from now because the system is dead, but I could've gotten $500 if I'd sold it a year or two earlier, that's $300 less I have to invest in my business. That might not be much for some but it is for a small business like me and it's something I must take into consideration. 

    I wish we could stop looking at things in black and white, and accept that others aren't in the same position as us when mocking the decisions they feel they need to make. 

  8. On 3/21/2021 at 11:49 AM, fuzzynormal said:

    Why the bump in used camera prices?  Is it because brand offerings of enthusiast cams in the mid/low tier range have restricted a little over the past few years?  More YT kids trying to buy in on the used market?

    I wonder if the retail price for cameras over the last year or so has made people reconsider buying used? As great as they were, most folks simply aren't in a position to drop $3500 or more on the A7siii or S1H, especially during a pandemic. 

    The truth is you can create your vision with pretty much any camera that has been released in the last 5 years (or older if you don't care about 4K!), or at least get close enough that you're willing to forgo the latest gear in favor of value. 

    It might be hard to find a $200 camera that can do 4K and has a M43 or bigger sensor, but the fact that you can find one in the $300-350 range, and it's not that far off from what you need to spend $2000 or more for, is a pretty huge deal. The GX85 I bought for a bargain still holds its weight and if it weren't for my concerns with the M43 system as a whole I'd be prefectly fine using it with my G85 and GH5 for years to come. 

  9. 39 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

    I've had similar luck finding some good deals, but I've also seen price increases in Olympus gear recently ...no idea why. Now, Panasonic stuff is super-inexpensive. The only exception is the e-m1 ii, which is still a super-killer deal right now. I just love those guys who keep spewing "sensor size is everything". Let's keep that going for as long as possible!

    I'm guessing with the Olympus sale users are trying to grab up Olympus gear out of fear it won't be around much longer. I know a lot of M43 users that have exclusively Olympus glass even though they shoot Panasonic. 

  10. I got my GX85 for for well under $200 after selling the cheap Olympus zooms that came with it. 

    I'm actually quite surprised how well the value of Panasonic cameras have held. You can get $450 for a used G7 body only, which is wild when you consider its been on sale for the last 2 or 3 years with two lenses for under $600.

    The GX85 is arguably the best value out there on the second hand market if you're in need of 4K though the prices have gone up since I bought mine. The IBIS is clutch! 

    The Zcam E1 is quite difficult to find here in the US used. And the Yi M1 is more expensive than some of the GX85 on eBay! Cheapest is $380! I remember the M1 being rubbish even though it used the same sensor as the GH4. 

  11. What they're doing is very interesting. I've yet to use one myself, though I've heard it's a bit rough around the edges when it comes to OS and some reliability. 

    I think they need to streamline their naming convention and have more than just a Facebook group for promotion and support. That stuff is a bit confusing / makes the overall system unwelcoming given the attitude many people in their group have to anyone that doesn't praise absolutely everything about the cameras. I see people getting talked down to regularly when just asking genuine support questions. 

  12. 12 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

    Your statistics doesn't tell us what Vermont did that NYC and north east states didn't. Massachusetts is state of science believers I guess. 

    Now you're just grasping for straws. 

    Early in the pandemic Vermont enacted social distancing, such as closing down schools and restaurants, limited all businesses (including Walmart) to selling just basic necessities, enacted strict contract tracing and testing (which is why one of the least populous states had the 7th highest rate of tests given in the county), and restrictions were only loosened based on what the data said. Add that the state has one of the best health care systems in the country and one of the healthiest populations, and even YOU should be able to figure out why the state is considered the model for the rest of the country. 

    The Governor is a Republican, by the way. Some of them don't think following the advice of experts is a political issue! Weird, huh? 

    I'm not from Massachusetts BTW. Born and raised in Vermont. 

  13. 4 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

    That was at its borders. But you intentionally remove the word "border" to make it support your Vermont narrative. 

    Not at all, otherwise I wouldn't have linked right to the article discussing it. They literally created quarantine centers where hundreds of thousands of people were made to quarantine, which contradicts your original point. Instead of acknowledging that fact you've decided to try and play semantics which doesn't even help your argument anyway. 

    I don't even need to push a "Vermont narrative", the facts and statistics speak for themselves. 

  14. I suppose there could be SOME commonality image wise between cameras using Sony sensors but I think it'd be fairly minor given how much else goes into it all. I don't really notice a "Sony look" in cameras that use their sensors personally, and certain cameras have gotten truly amazing results using Sony sensors. 

    I do though think it's imperative that other options are explored as relying on a competitor to produce all your sensors seems like a bad idea long term. I imagine it all boils down to cost but Blackmagic has the right idea if they're having sensors tailored to their camera designs like they did with the Ursa 12K. I'm not sure how viable that is in sub $10,000 cameras but I think the sensor technology they went with is one of the most interesting things about that camera and how it could impact the industry as a whole. 

  15. I suspect something is coming, since PhotoJoseph hints at the end of this video saying the M43 story isn't over and to stay tuned. Given he's a Lumix ambassador it might mean something (or nothing) but it'd be a bit strange if he just randomly re-edited this 4 year old live stream video about M43 for the heck of it. 


  • Create New...