newfoundmass

I agree with pretty much all of this. Honestly we dumb the conversation down when we just talk about PDAF or CDAF, as if each implementation is equal to one another when that simply isn't true. Look at Fuji. It switched to PDAF what, 6 years ago? Yet it still isn't very good. We also ignore that CDAF's hit rate in stills was pretty much on par with PDAF, meaning the issue was largely video related and that issues like pulsing were issues with CDAF in general. Panasonic built on years and years of fine tuning their auto focusing algorithms and technology, which were always pretty solid, and merely switched how the focusing is done. Do I wish they'd done it earlier? Yes, if only because I got sick of people (mostly people that were never going to use their cameras anyway) complaining about it.

I don't even think they lack in resolution. There are old cameras with 1080p that still look good to me, among them the original BMPCC, C100, and the GH3 (and hacked GH2). They might not have the higher resolution or the DR of cameras today, but they have pleasing images that hold up. In fact, from a pure image standpoint, the BMPCC was my favorite camera I've ever owned. It's the other quality of life things that made me move on more than the resolution or dynamic range. Other cameras had a "good enough" image, but better battery life, IBIS, auto focus, audio preamps, etc. were all worth the trade off. I could pull out my GH5 with minimal rigging and get 2 hours of record time, amazing IBIS, good enough auto focus, and all the other things that made my job significantly easier.

The gap has really closed, and the fx3 is just an A7sIII, which at this point is a 4 year old camera. A camera that came out last year should be close to a 4 year old one!

Like with your GH5 post the other day, almost all cameras made in the last 10 years are capable tools that can produce nice images. It doesn't mean though that you should go out and buy a GH4 in 2024. There are plenty of "quality of life" improvements that have occured since the GH4's release that make it a lot less desirable camera compared to something like the GH5 or S1. We're blessed to be at a point where we could use a 10 year old camera and still get good results if we HAD to, but let's not pretend that the cameras that have come out since aren't significantly better in every way. IBIS alone radically changed the way I film and work.

Why not?

Yeah, I wouldn't expect there to be another S5 until 2026 sometime. There really isn't a reason to release a mark III sooner than that, especially with whatever else they have in the pipeline. Even a year from now the S5 II/X will be a really good value, and they can lower the price if needed to keep it competitive. They hit a home run with their entry model, now it's time to focus on their other cameras.

Having owned both, the S5ii is much more reliable. But the AF "issues" with Panasonic cameras were always overblown in most instances and easy to manage. The biggest damage the dfd system did was to their reputation. I still use two S5s to film pro-wrestling, a pretty unpredictable endeavor, and the AF is fine, which if you'd only seen unpractical AF tests from Youtubers you'd never believe was possible It IS though almost absolutely unusable for small objects and animals in video

It's not apathy, it's just being a realist. There is very little that I can do when my business depends on using these programs. There simply are not alternatives out there that would seamlessly slip into my workflow without adding time and limitations. I wish there was, as I've spent time and money trying other applications out because I despise the subscription model. Things that take literally a few clicks in Photoshop can take minutes to achieve in Affinity Photo or Gimp, and for me that's just not an option.

You don't think that artwork is being used when it's posted to the internet? What do you think is being fed to AI, man? Until there are laws in place there's not a ton we can do. Not excusing it, just being honest. I'd love to say goodbye to Photoshop and Illustrator because of the subscription mode alone, but as I said there's nothing out there replaces them for me.

Most everything, honestly, has jumped the shark at this point. I was watching a toy YouTube channel over the weekend with my niece and it had more shallow DOF than a Zack Snyder film AND used slow motion when filming the toys. You think the 6 year olds watching were impressed?!

The problem is that there's nothing that comes close to replacing Photoshop and Illustrator for a lot of us. I bought Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer, but they overall slowed me down and lacked features. For all the criticisms that there are for Photoshop and Illustrator, and they are all legitimate, they get the job done and for those of us who've used them for 25 years it's very difficult to switch. Unfortunately this is the new future. We're all training AI every single day without even realizing it. Our posts on this message board are probably being used to train AI, not to mention our social media, search history, etc.

As a Final Cut Pro user who has also used Resolve, my primary reason for sticking to Final Cut Pro is all of the plugins that I've purchased that are a part of my workflow. If I was starting over though there really isn't a single reason I can think of that I'd choose Final Cut Pro over Resolve. Export times are very impressive on the new chips Apple uses, but they aren't that much faster than the performance you'd get from Resolve. There are still things about Final Cut Pro X that confuse and frustrate me, even after all these years, and honestly I've still not forgiven them for deviating so far away from the Final Cut Pro UI and workflow.

Azden also has something similar: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1621121-REG/azden_smx_30v_30v_stereo_mono_mixable_video.html I've never used it, but I've heard it uses the same (or similar) shotgun capsule as my Azden SGM-250CX which I'm quite fond of and have had for nearly 10 years. A lot of the mics mentioned in this post could fit in your pocket very easily. The other thing is, you can get "decent" (decent being subjective, obviously) sound with a $100 (even less on the used market) stereo mic like the Tascam TM-2X and a $49 supercardioid mic like Deity V-Mic D4. You could fit both of those mics in the same pocket. You could also just use something like a Zoom H1 as a stereo mic, mounting it to the top of and plugging it into your camera. Basically there are options that fit within almost any budget that don't take up a ton of room. And if you buy from a reputable dealer that allows returns, you can always order something, try it out and return it if it's not what you're looking for.

A shotgun mic would be better to pick up a specific sound in that scenario, while still getting some of the other sounds around it. A stereo mic, like the Rode or the Sennheiser, will do a better job of capturing the environment as a whole. Let's say you're on a busy street and there's a man playing music on the corner. With the Deity you'll be able to focus in more on the music, with less street noise in the recording. With a stereo mic you'll pick up the street noise a lot more when focusing on the musician. In nature, replace the musician with a waterfall or stream. You'll be able to focus in on the noise the waterfall or stream makes, but won't hear the other noises (such as birds chirping) as well. With a stereo mic you'll capture more of the sound around you, at the cost of being able to focus in on specific noises. Ideally you'll have multiple microphones for whatever situation you'll be in. Kind of like lenses. Some mics can also do both, or at least say they can.

It boils down to preference and what sounds you want to capture. I personally would go for something like the Sennheiser MKE 440. I really don't think a supercardioid is the ideal mic to pic up full sounding ambient noise in nature. If you wanted to do more specific sound recording in the forest then that's different.

If I'm outdoors standing on a cliff and want to capture the sounds of the forest around me, I definitely wouldn't go the supercardioid route. While not an identical scenario, when I was looking for mics for my pro-wrestling work, I went with stereo ones that could better pick up the spectators and arena atmosphere. My beloved supercardioid mic (the Azden SGM-250CX, a very underrated mic IMO) did a poor job of it, because it mostly picked up what was going on in the ring itself, which for me is actually a negative because it picked up the wrestlers talking to each other during the matches. Scratch mics are generally mics that pick up audio that isn't used in the final edit but only as a reference. It doesn't really apply to your question, I'm not sure why he brought it up. Yes, but you really don't need 32-bit for the uses you've described. Simply plugging a microphone into the GH7 and setting your levels will be more than enough for what you're talking about doing. I use 32-bit float audio because I deal with situations that are unpredictable, where audio will suddenly get way louder out of nowhere so I need to be able to bring it down in post. For what you're doing, you really won't have that problem. A simple stereo mic that you plug into your GH7 is more than enough, and will save you hundreds of dollars in buying an adapter you don't need to achieve what you're talking about.

Unless you need 32 bit float audio or are using an XLR microphone you don't need the XLR adapter. There are a lot of different mics you can go with to get good ambient sound, with different configurations. The Stereo VideoMic for example has an XY configuration, while the Sennheiser MKE 440 has a more directional dual shotgun configuration. Which is better comes down to preference and what you're looking for.

That has just as much to do with bitrate than resolution. No one said that there isn't a difference between shooting 4K and FHD, merely that there is not much difference when watching them on the televisions most of us have, at the distance most of us watch them at. I've been filming in 4K instead of FHD for nearly 10 years at this point for a reason. But 4K displays were mostly a gimmick. While most people now have them almost all content watched on them is FHD because most people have thus far decided that 4K isn't worth the premium they want you to pay (example: Netflix's most popular tier by far is the Standard tier which is only FHD.) That's why I bring it up: you're already worried about 8K and whether or not 6K will look good on it, when 4K hasn't even become the primary resolution in which people consume content and still, most of us don't even have big enough 4K displays to appreciate 4K content all that much more than we do FHD. LOL. Man, 5' is way too close to be watching an 85" TV whether it's 8K or 4K. Seriously, don't ever do that. But to answer your bigger question: 6K will look fine on an 8K... and so will FHD and 4K, assuming you buy a reasonable TV size for your room and seating.

No, they won't look soft. You'll never own an 8K screen big enough to truly see much difference between 4K and 8K, just as most folks don't really see that significant of a difference between 1080p and 4K screens, in part because the majority of the content consumed today is still 1080p. All my TVs are 55 inch 4K. To see the difference between 4K and FHD I need to be uncomfortably close. 10 feet away I can't really tell much of a difference, and neither can most people. They'll push 8K on us to get people to unnecessarily "upgrade" but it'll be even less necessary than the switch from FHD to 4K.

Must be just a Windows thing for now. I notice that thread is 4 months old.

I appreciate your optimistic take, but that's not how most people look at it, nor should it be. A camera you purchased for $2000 a year or two ago should not be dead already, and it's value on the used market should not be 1/4 of the price just because the manufacturer decided to discontinue it and run a fire sale. I'd have a very bad taste in my mouth if I'd bought the GH6. My GH5 was nearly 6 years old when I sold it. 2017 to 2023. No amount of spin is going to make a GH6 user happy that the camera they spent $2000 on is selling for $550 brand new with lens.

He paid like 1/4 retail cost haha. If I'd bought one a year ago at full retail cost I'd be pretty upset that my camera was discontinued and now has almost no value on the used market to help pay for a GH7 because they're now available for new for $550 with kit lens. That's about what I got paid for my used GH5 about a year ago.

First: I'd be pissed if I bought a GH6. I get why they released it, people (including myself) were getting impatient, but discontinuing it (thus killing the resale price) is a pretty big blow to a user base that already saw Lumix release better cameras almost immediately after it's release. With all that said: I think the GH7 is a pretty darn good release. If I was still in M43 I'd be getting 3 of them. It's honestly the first time I've regretted getting rid of all my M43 lenses, as even now I think two of them would go great with my S5II X. I miss the small lenses quite a bit, especially on show days. The only thing I'm a bit bummed about is the battery life. I hope there's a way they can push a firmware update to make the new audio adapter work with the S5II X. When I upgrade my b and c cams they'll probably be S5II bodies because I've already got the lenses for them, but I'll be damned if m43 didn't make me think about dipping my toe back in.

In my travels Sony has been by far more common than Canon. That wasn't the case 10 years ago. From Chicago to Vermont, FX cameras are king and it's not even close. People i know that used to have C100s either got R bodies or switched to Sony because Canon took too long to bring out a successor.

I know so few people that actually own/use these Canon cinema cameras. Everyone I know has switched to Sony. Those that didn't have pretty much ditched the cinema line altogether and gone with one of Canon's mirrorless options. I'd be curious to see how many cinema cameras they actually sell these days.