newfoundmass

14 hours ago, IronFilm said:

$600 for a 35mm f1.8 or $800 for a 24mm f1.8 or $900 for an 18mm f1.8!

They really needed to develop a cheaper lens, even if means a compromise on image quality, even if it means it is slower (but not slower than f4) to cater to the wide angle needs of S9 users. 

20mm f4 would have been a fantastic lens for the selfie shooter. Throw in a mid-wide like a 35mm f2.8 at a very cheap price, and you'd have lots of happy S9 users. 

Yes, Panasonic's lens options are a weakness. The primes they have are excellent and geared towards video shooters in that they are roughly the same size and weight, have the same filter size, have minimal focus breathing, etc. but they are bigger than their competitors. They are more expensive than Canon's f1.8 primes, which are under $300 and much smaller, but the build quality isn't nearly as good as the Panasonic lenses. Sony has a lot of options, with their sub $600 primes being pretty small but they're also F1.8, f2.5, and f2.8. 

Panasonic should really look into doing budget primes along the lines of what they have for m43 (14mm f2.5, 20mm f1.7, 25mm f1.7, 30mm f1/7, 42.5mm f1.7) A bunch of compact f2.5 or F2/8 lenses for under $300 would be appealing.

We're all aware of the exploitation of people and countries resources...

But you're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone that Panasonic has honey potted a bunch of camera nerds with prostitutes so that they'll shill their cameras. 

I assure you, 98% of them only need a free trip and free swag to do it. Hell, half of them will do it if they get a nice email from some PR person pretending they're interested in their opinions and feedback. 

22 hours ago, hojomo said:

Americans mostly have the memory of gerbils, and many (key being voters in swing states) are looking at increased cost of living and telling themselves it was better under the orange con man.

We live in a bizarre world where a large chunk of the middle class and low income folks think the guy that literally shits on gold toilets cares about them.

My guess would be ProRes RAW

🤣

I don't think you need to buy YouTubers hookers to get them to go along with the corporate PR. They've already proven to be much cheaper to buy off. 

I'm surprised they'd just straight up discontinue the GH6.

The GH7 will need to have some really killer features to stand out, I think. 

Cowards. 

Curtis posted this and I think it's a much more measured view on what is at play when it comes to the current YouTube landscape and reviews. He spent the last 10 weeks making videos on only things he paid for himself and this is his thoughts on it. It was done based on his own thoughts and curiosity, not out of bitterness because he wasn't invited on a trip.

As far as YouTubers go I feel Curtis is one of the more transparent ones and is overall very thoughtful. 

4 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

6 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

You cover the loss of earnings like you would for any vacation, except you generate revenue from this trip through sponsors and ad revenue based on the content you make from it.

I don’t think the ad revenue argument stands up to any scrutiny to be honest.

Have a look at the views for all of the S9 videos.

YouTube pays what these days, $2-3K per million views?

Ad revenue is decided on a lot of different factors, none of which YouTube really shares with us (or at least not me.) I'll randomly earn $20 dollars in revenue one month for a 10 year old video that got a dozen views. Meanwhile a video that gets a couple thousand views will make half that. 

Ad revenue isn't bringing in the money that it used to, but it DOES still generate passive income. It may only be a couple thousand dollars a month, but for many folks that might be enough to pay for their mortgage or rent. 

9 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

You’d have to question the business wisdom of such a trip that took out at least 7-8 days out of working time when you factor in prep, travel and jet lag recovery.

Yes the travel, accommodation and likely some sort of PD was involved but without an actual fee, how is the loss of earnings for those days covered ?

You cover the loss of earnings like you would for any vacation, except you generate revenue from this trip through sponsors and ad revenue based on the content you make from it.

I've traveled all over the United States but I had virtually no time to actually enjoy it. There are cities I've been to literally four dozen times that I've seen very little of, because I had MAYBE 2 or 3 hours of leisure time if I was lucky and the rest were 12+ hour days in a venue doing production set up and filming. Most of my time not at work was spent in a car, hotel, or airport. I guarantee these YouTubers got more time to check out Japan during one of these trips than I got to check out Philly, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. in the dozens of times each that I was paid to be there to work.

Here is an example of a work trip I did regularly:

Early flight out of Burlington to Chicago on Friday. Land, get picked up, and drive immediately to the venue for 10AM, only stopping to get food. Spend the day setting up. Event starts at 7PM. Film the event (4 hours or so). Tear down. Leave venue around 1AM. Get food. Drive to Detroit. Go to hotel and sleep a few hours. Go to the venue for 10AM, only stopping to get food. Spend the day setting up. Event starts at 7PM. Film the event (4 hours or so.) Tear down. Get food, then drive to airport for early flight back to Burlington. Get home late Sunday. Edit the events. Then repeat the entire process the next weekend.

None of those trips afforded me the opportunity to check out local markets, bars, or watch sunsets surrounded by postcard scenery while enjoying engaging conversations with my colleagues. 😉

I still have my OG pocket from the great sale of 2014! 

It's all branding and marketing, including this video from Gerald. I'm surprised so many people buy into it. Look, the dude humble bragged about how he takes these trips and then just hangs out instead of filming anything, but he gets most passionate when he starts talking about how he wasn't invited on the last Japan trip for the Lumix S5II and now this trip, with Lumix directly telling him that they just didn't think he'd like the camera. Most of the rest of his video was just acknowledging what we've all been saying for years and what Gerald himself has benefited/profited from, he just thinks it's an ethical problem because he's no longer on the list of people Lumix wants to play nice with.

There's absolutely truth in what he is saying, but let's be clear: if Gerald cared about ethical camera reviews he'd still be getting cameras from a local camera shop to test instead of having relationships with these companies. If he'd still kept doing that he'd never had been able to make a living doing YouTube though. Did he really ever think these companies viewed him as anything other than a mark they could exploit to market their products to people or was he just happy to be part of the game until other companies not named Sony decided to allocate their marketing resources to other reviewers?

Today it's easy to put Panasonic on blast. He sees the writing on the wall. He really has nothing to lose, his channel has predominantly been Sony focused for the last several years anyway and, honestly, it wouldn't shock me if this marks a change in his channel in general as the YouTube camera reviewer bubble seems to have burst or bottomed out for a lot of people. Views are down even on his Sony videos.

If nothing else he has seemingly successfully branded himself as the lone moral voice in the camera/gear space, as far as YouTube is concerned.

14 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

From the specs on the Panasonic UK website:

 

It sucks, but I'll give them credit for putting the recording limits in. At least then people can know what to expect, unlike with other camera companies. 

This was a confusing watch, honestly. He started out by saying viewers put too much value in the trips, yet he is clearly irked that he has been snubbed by Panasonic and not brought on them. 99% of his viewers will never be flown to an exotic location, put up in a nice hotel, and otherwise have the red carpet rolled out for them. That he tries to act like they aren't a big deal (despite his clearly being irked at being left out) shows how much of a disconnect there is between people like him and the rest of us. 

I don't doubt that he's being honest about Lumix BUT I've pointed out in the past on here how biased Gerald's titles are when it's a Sony camera versus when it's other brands. Examples:

As a consumer I don't like it, but if I'm looking at it as the marketing person for these other camera brands and I saw how much of a shill he has become for Sony (and he can argue all he wants that he's the most critical of Sony out of every other company he reviews, it isn't true) I'd probably not bend over backwards for him either. 

His broader message about being disposable to these companies I agree with, but he played the game, helped create the beast, and still, to an extent, continues to be a part of the problem. 

It's not a release that entices me at all but props to Panasonic for putting recording limits so people at least know how long they can record for. If you're absolutely deadset on releasing a camera that has overheating issues (ugh) the least you can do is be honest about it. Now if only other camera manufacturers did that....

I really don't know what to say about that lense, though. I guess it'll appeal to Street shooters? 

B&H, Adorama & MPB have all served me well when buying used. I bought my S5iix new, but that was because it was on sale and the used price wasn't much lower. If it's only $100 or $200 cheaper then it really might be worth getting it new instead, but I generally buy cameras that are a couple years old which is where you'll find bargains. 

You're probably going to get the same overheating on a used camera as you will on a new one, assuming the camera you're getting has overheating issues to begin with. The same applies for most issues a camera may have. 

Third party warranties aren't a terrible idea. I get extended warranties if they're available for any expensive purchase I make. For me that's usually anything over $1000, though what is and isn't expensive varies per person. I film a lot of pro-wrestling, so the thought of having my brand new $2,000 camera and $1,000+ lens damaged and being SOL because I didn't spend a little more on the extended warranty gives me nightmares. Better to be safe than sorry, I say. 

It's possible to get those kinds of results using a standard profile on an 8-bit camera. Picture profile settings are just part of it, though. Nailing color and exposure are important.

I'm not necessarily blown away by the dynamic range personally. I think it looks good, especially considering it's shot on what is almost a 10 year old camera, but I think it really just boils down to it being a nice day out. 

People keep talking about the patent, but I really don't think it is the reason behind the purchase at all.

Nikon wants to get into the video/cinema market. Their recent releases are evidence of that. They have very little chance though of getting a foothold in the market on their own. Purchasing RED, even though it lags behind ARRI and probably even Sony, makes a lot more sense than creating something on their own from scratch that will likely fail.

Major blockbusters and shows are filmed using RED cameras. Tons of independent films are shot on RED cameras. It has a loyal user base. Those are reasons enough for any company looking to get into the cinema/video market to purchase them instead of starting from scratch. Will it work? Who knows, but it's a better building block than what they had to work with. Better to own the company whose camera was used to film blockbusters like Guardians of the Galaxy and Aquaman than to release a cinema camera that will see minimal adoption,

6 hours ago, mercer said:

What would be the point then? Red isn't a huge company with large profits but they do have RedCode with a great plug in workflow. I'd think it's the only reason for Nikon to purchase Red. 

A loyal customer base and a foothold in Hollywood is a pretty significant reason to purchase RED if a company is looking break into that market. 

With this purchase Nikon leap frogs Canon when it comes to cinema cameras. Not a lot of Hollywood blockbusters filming on Canon cinema cameras, but some of the biggest ones are filmed on RED.

If it was any other company but RED I'd be pretty disappointed to see another company getting bought up. But in this case the only thing that upsets me is that the assholes running RED are all getting PAID. 

Nikon has clearly been trying to get their foot in the door when it comes to video users, so buying RED makes all the sense in the world. Now it just depends on what they do with it. 

There were a lot of ups and downs.

I launched my own pro-wrestling company in May. It has been very successful so far.

I've continued my freelance video work and it has gone well.

I'm pretty content where I'm at gear wise. I'll probably upgrade my B and C cams to S5IIs but overall I'm quite happy with the L-mount and feel pretty good about its future.

I was diagnosed with kidney cancer. Had my right kidney removed. No more cancer. If my scans look good in April I'll be officially considered cured. 

Flooding ravaged my community twice. It is still recovering.

So 2023 brought some real big highs and some real low lows. If it weren't for the election I'd almost be looking forward to 2024!

Happy New Year to all of you!

Aputure is great, but also look into Godox or Small Rig if you want to save a little bit of money. I have a Small Rig kit I put together that is holding up pretty well, though there are a couple things I wish they'd done to make them better, namely a little better construction and putting glass over the LED chip so I could use it outside without worrying about bugs. Still a pretty good value given I got them on sale.

Adorama's Glow EZ soft boxes are also a great value and easy to set up. 

I'm always confused about people complaining about the size of the S5ii. I understand preferring a smaller camera, that's one of the reasons I loved M43, but the S5iix with 24-105mm (and the S5 with that same lens) is perfectly fine and pretty well balanced.

well this took a turn. hope you're okay!

4 hours ago, JulioD said:

Now there is a dud camera.

Sure the sensor is nice, but it’s horrible horrible to use and that’s why it failed.

I'd still like one 🙂