newfoundmass

2 hours ago, Evgeniy85 said:

Do people expect to film 2 hour interviews with it? 

If you're dropping $2200 on a camera you probably should be able to in 2023.

50 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

It is not just while recording, but simply being on that apparently it can overheat under certain conditions 

These tests also don't take into consideration things like humidity during summer, which can make it feel a lot hotter than it is. 

Some of the AI features ARE decent, but overall it's just a re-release of a 3 year old camera that is meant to appeal to those on a budget. It'll do great, I'm sure, but it's not much more than an attempt to squeeze a little more juice out of an old sensor and processor.

I couldn't possibly rely on this camera in the summer even at the temps Gerald tested it at because that doesn't account for how warm it really feels with humidity, in direct sunlight, or in a venue filled with hundreds of people with no AC, etc. And I live/work in Vermont! But it's not meant for users like me.

I will say, I'm not a fan of companies releasing cameras that have these kind of reliability flaws, even if they are honest about them. To me it feels like a step backwards, especially for Sony. I thought they'd moved on from releasing cameras that overheated. That you need to pay a premium to get a camera that won't overheat will never sit right with me. If you pay $2200 for a camera it should be usable in all but the most extreme conditions.

I think there are better cameras out there for what this camera is marketed for, but for those who've spent the last several years watching YouTubers gush about the A7Siii or the FX3 but couldn't afford one, I think this will be popular with them. I think we forget that the "famous" YouTubers are but a small fraction of those trying to create successful YouTube channels. There are millions of people on there trying to become the next big YouTuber but with limited resources. This is a camera that will probably appeal to them. They were probably ready to whip their credit cards out the second every reviewer said "it's like a A7Siii but for half the price."

35 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

And micro hdmi .. suddenly on Sony that is not a flaw.

Canon users really have a victim complex. Of course it is a flaw. As is the plasticky body, the single card slot, the insane crop needed to get usable stabilization, the overheating, etc. The difference is that Sony has more credibility with people because they haven't spent the last decade dicking people around while Canon has, so people are a lot less fervid in their criticism.

If you want to criticize Sony then their firmware upgrades are a great place to start. It's ridiculous that they don't push some of these upgrades that are available on cheaper cameras to their more expensive ones, given the hardware is capable of it. Not everything on the ZV-E1 can be carried over to older cameras, but a lot of it can be and SHOULD BE if Sony values their customers. 

Finally, can't understand the complaint of the sensor. 12 megapixels isn't a flaw because it has a purpose: better low light. If you don't need those low light capabilities or just want more megapixels then you should get the A7IV. 

This will probably do well for people producing social media content for businesses, but it'd do much better if they'd included an open gate mode so people could output video to the aspect ratios each service uses. Maybe it's a limit to the sensor size?

It will sell bunches based on being a lower priced A7Siii alone. There are also a lot of people still using the A7c and this is an easy upgrade path for them.

I have no interest in it, but I absolutely see the market it is going for.

My YouTube feed has been trash today, between the Freewell filters, Insta360 gimbal, and now this.

It'll be a great vlog camera with terrible/no stabilization, as is tradition with all cameras marketed as vlogging cameras whether it's Panasonic, Nikon, Canon or Sony.

30 minutes ago, markr041 said:

Forgive me, what do you mean? So, I can figure out whether to forgive you. [Rule "4. Please be polite to other users."]

I mean it quite literally, how does the boot of Jeff Bezos and Amazon taste? This kind of corporation apologia is ruining the world. And this is me being polite.

39 minutes ago, markr041 said:

Yes, Amazon bought it, and and finally had enough. Amazon has and had plenty of things they bought into that lost money - brick and mortar stores, hardware devices. Lots of stupid things. This was one. And Amazon bailed on those others too, like a good company should. They made a mistake. All those thousands of layoffs are due to their mistakes, including DPReview.

DPReview is a money loser, in which the leadership made no attempt to find revenue sources. Amazon is not to blame, the people running the site are.

The site is now filled with posters blaming Amazon, despite the fact that Amazon was subsidizing this no-revenue money pit for years. Not a single one these complainers spent a nickel towards the maintenance of the site. Some are saying they will never buy anything from Amazon again, as if they bought their Nikon Z9 from Amazon. Who the heck buys a serious camera (beside Instamax) from Amazon?

Forgive me, but how does that boot taste?

Shit I just pissed in my mouth made me LOL

5 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

How would you wade through deciding on that many cameras?

Decide what you NEED and then go from there. What sensor size would be you satisfied with? Do you need stabilization? Do you want a bunch of codec options? Is autofocus important? Low light? All those cameras have their strengths and weaknesses. It's all about finding the one that checks the most boxes for your budget. 

double post!

5 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Ditto.

I used to always upgrade to the most recent latest & greatest whether it really was or not and sometimes it was and other times it wasn’t.

Ideally, unless I absolutely need it, I hold off.

Since 2018, I have bought precisely 2 new cameras. That I have kept anyway (returned the OM-1 and XH2). These have been the S5 after I sold off all my Fuji gear knowing I was not going to stick with what I had and then recently the S5ii as I do have need for reliable AF for a % of my work.

But my S1R's, both now gone, purchased used for 1500 and 1600 euros and my current pair of S1H's, 2150 and 1850. 

For me it is the equation: need + cost + timing and I like to start any season with all the kit I am going to use and if I can, not make changes until after any season has finished.

Too many lens changes last year as I wrestled L Mount into submission but think I have it nailed down now…

COVID really opened my eyes about being extra thoughtful about how I spend my money and what I have my money tied up in. There were several times, even early in the pandemic when I tried to convince myself that things would be better by the summer, where I almost pulled the trigger on completely overhauling my kit. I had the money to do it, and my gear would've fetched more than it did last year when I finally did start the transition to the S5. But I'd have been in a really BAD situation if I had spent that money in 2019 or early 2020. I'd probably have had to start selling my gear, which I would need when things got back to "normal", to survive.

By waiting though I scored two S5 bodies in the last 12 months for a little over $2000 total and didn't put myself in a poor financial situation doing so. These cameras will serve me for at least the next two years, I'm sure longer if I really want them to, and will have paid for themselves over and over again by the time I decide to upgrade. By then they'll be 4 or 5 years old, but they'll still do the job just as the GH5 continues to do for me 6 years after buying it. I'll let others take the financial hit that comes with buying a new camera, because short of some MUST HAVE release, my days of buying the latest gear new are over. I'd rather keep that money in my pocket because if COVID showed me anything it's that I just don't know what the future holds and when we leave it to people to make the best decisions for the collective they often times don't.

39 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Understood. I’m wondering if it could be good for non-pros as an A-Cam if photos aren’t a factor. 

It'd be fine as an a-cam for a lot of pros too. 

The biggest knock I have towards the FX3 and the FX30 is that they are supposed to be part of the cine line, but they lack most of the cine features. But still, the FX30 is a more than capable a-cam for a lot of professional work. Maybe not HIGH HIGH end work, but still.

Wonder how it will handle thermal issues.

35 minutes ago, Django said:

I dunno sorry but that's a really goofy way of looking at things, especially if you're a pro. Buy the best camera you can afford that fits your requirements wether that's specs (resolution, codecs etc) or i/o's ergonomics etc. Obviously be smart and on the lookout for what camera will be a better long term investment rather than short if the camera is at the end of a cycle.

The FX3 is imo a much better investment and solution than the A7IV. First it doesn't overheat. That alone is key. Then you have all the cine features including LUT support. The fast readout sensor, A7IV has terrible RS. And of course the cage-less body and top handle with XLRs. If you're on a budget or don't need FF then the FX30 makes even better sense. 

S5ii is also very competitive. Why wait a year or two if you need the camera today?

Don't get me wrong, I don't buy cameras often at all, in fact much less than your average person around here. When I find a camera I'm comfortable with I stick with it forever. And I rarely go for flagships when they are new (I skipped R5, A7S3). 

But there are plenty of excellent options in the $2K-$3K region right now both new and used if you're in the market for an upgrade. So many in fact that it is hard to choose!

He seems to be an enthusiast that is looking to film personal videos and some stuff to put on YouTube.

There really is no reason to get the FX3 or any other expensive camera when he would be just fine filming with a more affordable one, like the A7IV. Please re-read the original post before recommending that a $4000 camera is a good investment for someone that is looking to film personal stuff that he might put on YouTube. If he has the money to blow, then I guess go for it, but he does not need a cine camera.

As far as my own personal philosophy, I want to get the most out of each and every camera investment I make. By waiting I not only will have made more money using the equipment I have, but the equipment that I want to upgrade to will have come down in price even more. In our disposable society where people need the latest and greatest that might seem goofy, but for me it makes the most financial sense and ensures that more money goes into my pocket. In the 5 years I've owned the GH5 it has paid for itself at least 50x over and continues to be a camera I can make money using over the next couple of years. That's what I'm concerned about the most as a freelancer who could one day find himself out of work for a year because of a global pandemic.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

MANY things!

Timecode. 

SDI outputs.

Reliability. 

Internal NDs. 

More recording options. 

etc etc etc etc

But for many people these extra factors don't matter to them. 

However, for many professionals these would be deal breakers for these to be missing. 

I was referring more to the OPs use case.

54 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

I suspect they are simply going where there is another regular presenting income without having to really do any marketing themselves.

Nothing wrong with that and we all have bills to pay and being a self-employed creator has as many risks as it does potential rewards.

I get the impression they have gone from one regular paid position to another as one door closes and another opens.

 

Yeah. If they were 20 somethings that weren't married with kids they might've gone a different direction, but they're older guys with wives and kids so they were gonna go with whatever site offered them a steady paycheck while allowing them to continue doing what they do. They can always fall back on doing their own thing eventually if they need to. 

I'm curious if this is doable should the site really "die"... does anyone remember Geocities, the free web hosting company? There was an effort to basically crawl every Geocities site possible and preserve it, because of all the data that would be lost once Yahoo deleted all the sites. 

Those sites are still available years on at https://www.oocities.org/ and https://www.geocities.ws/

To be clear, they are incomplete archives because it relied on the same crawling tactics that Google and Yahoo use, and if a site wasn't linked elsewhere it likely would fall through the cracks.

But with DPReview I think that would be less of an issue. The primary issue would be hosting all that data, as while it might not cost a lot for Amazon it probably would cost a bit for a normal person. There also then would be the issue of whether Amazon would object and take legal action. Perhaps reaching out to the Internet Archive to see if they could take this project on with some volunteers might be worth doing?

Just an idea that I haven't seen discussed really yet. It would at least preserve and make all that data available.

15 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

He backs his humour up with proper real world information that's why, he shows the differences, he uses the gear, he actually shoots even if its squirrels!

It's not that he doesn't provide information, because I actually think the way he uses cameras is actually really informative because it gives a totally different perspective from how the "pros" use them. A lot can be learned from observing people that are also learning. But I've seen him used as a source for things that Kasey himself openly admits he doesn't know anything about.

7 minutes ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

These are times where people use Camera Conspiracies as a serious site to get technical information...(no joke, each day I see more people using him as a tech reference)

On this board no less!

7 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The more I think about all this the angrier I get at the current staff there.

Nearly all scurrying off the deck of the ship like DPReview is nothing but fit for the bin.

If they had stuck with the site for longer than a few months it could encourage the sale to a new owner.

Instead they jumped like rats off the deck and have nearly all got new jobs already.

Meanwhile we're left with an empty shell of a website pending deletion.

It is an absolute disgrace and a total disregard of the global camera community.

It makes me think they know something that we don't. There's a story behind all of this, there has to be. All this has occurred too rapidly for there not to be.

6 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

https://petapixel.com/2023/03/21/chris-niccolls-and-jordan-drake-join-petapixel-to-lead-its-youtube-channel/

Why can't they be more honest and upfront.

DPReview TV is not closing then is it? It's getting a new logo.

If I were them I would have gone indie. I don't know why they feel they have to be freelancers for a .com blog

Let's face it, YouTube is bigger than Petapixel isn't it?

I'm actually surprised that they didn't go their own way too, though they might feel more financially secure to be on the payroll somewhere. The big difference between them and the rest of the YouTubers out there is that they're older and have families, so being on payroll somewhere might be more appealing. Probably provides more stability than having to rely on YouTube ad revenue that can really fluctuate. 

2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

They won't close.

It's a big asset and will have a lot of buyers. Current staff might go over to the new non-Amazon site or they will leave and do something else, which for me would be a good thing as they're not really up to the job.

DPR has a ton of camera info that would be very sad to lose from the internet, the database of specs, and historic reviews are part of the camera world's culture and it would be vandalism of the highest order if some idiot decided to delete it all rather than keep it online. It costs almost nothing to keep a website online and I am surprised Amazon is making such deep cuts at all, as DPReview is hardly likely to be a huge loss making part of the company.

What are the REAL reasons the site is closing? It surely can't be due to money. Perhaps a big fall out at the top between the DPReview management and Amazon?

If Amazon really are looking to save a few thousand dollars running DPReview which drives a ton of traffic to Amazon for camera purchases, then how bad must it be at Amazon?!

They were hiring like crazy during covid, big profit boom, then suddenly they can't afford to run a camera blog?

Even I can afford to run a fucking camera blog.

I smell something fishy.

Either the news is fake and they already have a buyer lined up. Chris and Jordan seemed really chirpy in their jokey closing video.

Or they are all hired already by a new site and will simply rebrand the existing one.

There is simply no way they will delete it.

The SEO and Google links alone are worth redirecting to a new site domain.

Why bin it?

They're not telling the truth.

I suspect a new site will open, but I do have to wonder if all the content will be carried over. It will be a damn shame if it isn't, and there will be only one party to blame for that: Amazon.

I think Chris and Jordan are probably in a more advantageous position than most of the DPReview staff. Most of the stuff they tested came from The Camera Store anyway, so I doubt little will change for them in that regard when they start their own channel. Plus I imagine they'd probably be welcomed back to The Camera Store in general.

4 minutes ago, markr041 said:

The problem was the site had no revenue source. There are essentially no ads, no paid subscriptions. Yet they archived all those uploaded photos for free, provided equipment reviews for free, provided moderators for free. All that costs money, but they had nothing to financially support the activities, relying on Amazon's subsidies. The "terrible" move was Amazon subsidizing the site and tolerating a leadership that made no effort to cover costs.

This was a charity. But even charities need donors. The leadership failed to look for revenue sources. Winning an Emmy does not qualify you for running anything that requires resources (look at the bio of the Manager of the site).

I do not understand how this site survives either. It seems to rely on the good graces of one man, which is not sustainable either.

If you think that those running DPReview had that much control to do any of those things without Amazon's approval you don't understand how corporations work. That isn't to absolve the people at DPReview of all responsibility, but when you sell your company to a corporation you cease to have that kind of control.