newfoundmass

This. The ability to shoot at such high frame rates without any rolling shutter is a huge deal for sports photographers. It's a genuine game changer for them. Read out speeds have gotten very good, yes, but it's just no match. 120fps, even for a short burst, is just a killer feature and I suspect almost every sports organization and team will be buying several for their production and social media teams. I know that people in the combat sports bubble I am in sure will be.

Global shutter is cool and all, but not having it really hasn't impacted my work given how good RS has gotten. I see this as being a much bigger deal for photography than video.

It should be okay in good lighting. Never heard much about it's rolling shutter being too bad. It's used by some of the pro-wrestling videographers I know and I've never noticed it being too bad.

Canon was always going to have an advantage because of their legacy lenses and near native performance on their RF cameras. Plus the name is just massive. I think though that camera sales are only part of the picture. Are those people buying new lenses, or are they using their legacy lenses on the new bodies? Also, what is the regional break down? I see A LOT Sony cameras these days, especially professionally. Most social media and web content teams use them for photo and video, from local companies to national companies (my friends working for WWE, All Elite Wrestling, and the UFC all shoot on Sony, for example.) The social media teams for most major venues in my neck of the woods, like TD Garden in Boston, also are using mostly Sony. But I'm also located in the Northeast United States/New England, so it might be different in other parts of the world or even other parts of the country. I also want to, but cannot for certain, say that Sony has the edge here for wedding shooters, though Canon has a heavy presence there too, especially amongst older professionals.

I love the retro body so much.

What excites me is them moving to the L-mount and also what their future plans could be. I could definitely see myself picking up a Blackmagic camera for my non-event work now that it's using the L-mount. Their price of entry is low enough as it is that I could easily justify it since I'd be able to use all my lenses I've gotten since switching completely to the L-mount.

Agreed. Aside from just being ugly, it's just not a very practical design for a video centric camera. My guess though is that's how they save money on development and manufacturing costs.

Full frame sensor, too!

They did it. They went with the L-mount. Nice! Still ugly as sin though haha.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't a very good camera, I think people just feel like the system is moving away from what it's potential is/could be. It's a radically different time than 2017 and the years before spent developing a the GH5. You could overlook the larger size, compared to previous M43 bodies, because it was so much more advanced than anything else out there. 4K 60, 10-bit, IBIS, etc. were all groundbreaking features for the mirrorless market. Now though, releasing a camera that is the size of a full frame camera but with a smaller sensor and features that are not significantly better than what is already out there is a harder sell. Like I said in a previous post, Panasonic probably has the marketing information to back up their decision making, and I absolutely understand that in many ways they are in a no win situation, but I just don't think they are able to compete when it comes to specs, at least not in a significant way. But size and affordability? Those are two things they absolutely could embrace and win some people over. An updated GH5 in a small, compact body at a very competitive price is a more compelling option for a lot of us vs. something like this. But again, it just might not be a feasible thing for them to do.

Whatever it is, it'll be incredibly ugly, unwieldy, and have terrible battery life. Can't wait!

I think, when it comes to M43, Panasonic is stuck trying to win over a segment of the market that simply will never buy a M43 camera. YouTubers have moved on to full frame to film themselves on a tripod in their "studio" aka basement, garage, or spare bedroom. Even if M43 leaned into the strengths of the system those folks will never buy in. Obviously they have more data than all of us, so maybe focusing on niche users just isn't viable. But it's hard to imagine that trying to win over folks that have moved on to larger sensors because they're "better" is a recipe for success. I loved the GH5. It was a game changer for me. But it was released during a very different time. You could overlook the increase in size because it had best in class features that no other mirrorless camera had. Everyone caught up though. I don't think there will ever come a time when I'll be all in on M43 again. But I absolutely would be open to dipping my toe back into the system if they released a compelling camera that could be a good b or c cam, or even an a cam when I'm trying to not draw attention. But it needs to offer something that others don't. For me, that's a feature rich (within reason), stable, and small camera.

It's a necessary evil, as it's required to make the camera competitive in the specs race that people seem to care more about, but we really are continuing to get further and further away from the promise of M43. The lenses, or at least most of them, are still smaller but it's a real bummer that we can't get smaller cameras even if it's at the expense of higher resolutions than 4K. Perhaps it'd be too niche, but a GH5 with updated colors and PDAF in the body of a GX85 at a competitive price would make me consider getting a M43 body again. The GX85 with the 35-100 f2.8 is still one of my favorite combinations due to how low profile it is. I genuinely miss that set up and more than once have found myself regretting selling it.

My biggest issue with gyro stabilization right now is the increased processing time it adds in post. It's not ideal for fast turn around and long takes. BUT the potential is HUGE and could be a total game changer, especially as processing power in cameras increases. We're not that far away I bet from it all being done in camera, which would be huge.

Yes, a speedbooster will improve low light performance. I think the argument that the FX3 is better in low light is overblown. It's always nice to have, but 99% of the time you'll never need to film at those higher ISOs. And the FX30 is no lightweight when it comes to low light anyway, especially if you're using fast lenses, which you can buy with the money you save not buying the FX3.

I think it boils down to how much you really value the larger sensor. It's definitely one of those things that only you can answer if it's worth the extra money. I can see the argument for it, but me personally, it's hard to justify.

You're the one being defensive, man. I chose not to respond to you because there wasn't any reasoning with you, and you wouldn't concede anything so what's the point? Maybe when multiple people notice something about you there's something to it even if you can't see it? I don't know.

You see it a bit with Canon too, though I do agree that Sony has supplanted Canon when it comes to people defending them no matter what.

I can't imagine identifying so much with a billion dollar corporation that I have to defend them no matter what. It really is a weird part of this hobby/profession (and honestly, many others.) It's little wonder why these companies think they can get away with things, they'll have an endless number of people defending anything and everything without being on their payroll!

They were only a few dollars more than the ProGrade here in the US. My friend Tom highly recommended them, so I figured I'd take a chance! Fingers crossed!

And they all said the same thing about the 6700 😉

seems like it has most of the same overheating issues as the a6700.

Nothing I said was false and nothing you said proves otherwise. Sony is putting out features like breathing compensation that only work with Sony lenses. It requires specific communication between the lens and the camera to computate the correction needed. If they wanted to they could work with third party lens manufactures to make it work with them, but they won't because they want people to buy their lenses. It's not 2016 anymore. Sony now has a large lens lineup and has become a leader in the market. They really don't need to play nice with third party companies anymore, because they really don't need them to boost the system anymore. Bless your heart for giving any of these companies the benefit of the doubt, but my original statement strands: it would not shock me at all to see Sony clamping down on third party lenses in order to try and sell more of their own. And there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so, as a few lines of code can make third party AF lenses useless if they so choose.

I went with a couple of Angelbird cards. We'll see how they go! Fingers crossed!

None of that limits their ability to clamp down moving forward. Nothing can stop companies from making lenses for the mount, but it's absolutely possible for Sony to limit how well those lenses work on Sony bodies. We're already seeing it with Sony developing features like breathing correction that only work with Sony lenses.