newfoundmass

$500 is a lot of money. ---- I think the hype for this is (as usual) overblown BUT there aren't a ton of options at this price point, making it enticing for a very specific audience. I do feel as though we are moving backwards and heading towards Canon cripple hammer territory taking things like IBIS away (not that Sony IBIS is very good to begin with.) What I really wish Lumix would take from this release is THE POWER ZOOM. GIVE US SOME, PLZ.

I don't know that their current business model is sustainable with a constantly shrinking market and being a niche system. So the question is really "how long can OMD stay in business?" It'll really boil down to how long OMD wants to stick around before deciding enough is enough. Panasonic has seemingly slowed down their decline and possibly even reversed it a little, so their long term future is less in doubt I think. But M43's future is still up in the air and really depends on whether Panasonic decides to keep going with it if it's just not a profitable part of their business. Even if it does stick around I don't know that we'll ever really see the true promise of M43s, which was small cameras and small lenses with powerful features. The lenses are smaller, but the bodies aren't that much smaller than their full frame counterparts. Still I'll always have a soft spot for the M43 system and wish I'd kept a couple lenses.

I don't think so at all. iPhones (and phones in general) are obviously very popular, but M43, 1-inch compact cameras, and action cameras have all been on the decline for a long time. Really the whole industry has been, but GoPro for example lost $75 million last year. Their stock has plummeted something like 97%. The action camera market is not doing good, even though DJI and Insta360 have been pretty aggressive in releasing new cameras. They just don't have the burdens GoPro has, since they are Chinese companies and action cameras aren't their only products. Sony put out vlogging cameras in the ZV and RX100 series of cameras, but they didn't really set the world on fire. It sounds like Panasonic is going to release something similar but I have my doubts that it'll be successful. Vlogging just doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as it used to be, with a lot of people transitioning to different content and even before they did that a lot were using APS-C and full frame cameras for YouTube, and many others have transitioned to using phones for the short form content they post to TikTok, Facebook, and IG. M43 will exist as long as OMD and Panasonic want it to, but the GH7 could realistically be either the last stand or it could breath new light into the system. Too early to tell, but it got a lot of praise but whether or not that translates to people actually buying it, who knows? I kind of regret getting completely out of the system, but I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't have ended up having to in a couple years anyway.

IBIS on Panasonic M43 cameras will always be better than the IBIS of their full frame counterparts because of the smaller sensor. Still the IBIS in the original S5 was very good. The S5II cut the IBIS gap, but it still couldn't compete with the GH6, G9 or the GH7. Panasonic full frame IBIS is still head and shoulders above everyone else though.

I say this as a S5II X owner... a lot of people saying this (and there are more than one) are Panasonic shills. The stabilization is great, it's why I own the camera, but we're getting a bit ridiculous. Less youtube shill videos plz.

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.