newfoundmass

Not to turn this into a GH5 thread, but the reason I've kept my GH5 and why I planned on sticking with it was because it's still a very good camera, and if we're being honest for most of us there's not really anything out there that is so heads and shoulders better that we NEED to drop thousands of dollars on a new camera. The only reason it's not my a-cam right now is because I got a really great deal on an S5. But the GH5 is such a good camera, and I'd planned on using it for at least another 2 or 3 years. At this point I don't know that I'll ever buy a NEW camera again, because there really hasn't been that huge of a jump since the GH5 came out. I think I'll be perfectly content being a couple camera releases behind unless something big happens. If I'm still shooting Panasonic in a couple years I'll probably get a GH6. To me the M43 system had/has so much potential. In some ways I feel like it was a mistake to try and compete with larger sensor cameras, even though it resulted in incredible cameras like the GH series. Those cameras are what brought them to the dance, so to speak, but it was only a matter of time before everyone else would catch up, and in that period between when the GH5 was released and when a full frame equivalent that could match its capabilities was finally released, Panasonic had stopped innovating in the M43 space. When I got a GX85 I really kinda realized what the true potential for M43 was: small lenses and small bodies. I still take the GX85 and 35-100mm f2.8 into places that I could never bring an APS-C or full frame equivalent into and get beautiful, stable footage every time. It's such a small package that no one even gives it a second thought to. It's such a discreet, compact package. You'd have to use a bridge camera from Sony to get comparable footage, but it'd have a smaller sensor and worse stabilization. It's late, I'm rambling, but I do hate seeing people pronounce the death of M43 because I see so much potential in it, but I don't know that it'll ever reach it or if it's even viable to try.

What's cheap in your opinion? We're seeing some in the $1000 range, from companies like GVM, which is pretty wild. I don't know that we'll ever see them get much lower in price. The influx of lower priced LED lights has been because of YouTubers, I think. More powerful lights though, ones in the 600w and up range, don't really have that big of a market and people wanting them typically have bigger budgets to work with and will pay more.

Gerald does do some stuff that goes beyond just showing what's on a spec sheet, but I agree with a lot of what you said @Andrew Reid. For me, it's just disappointing to see someone that was so even handed become a Sony apologist. He was a bright spot amongst shills and influencers for a while there. Do you have any channels you're enjoying these days?

M43 will live on for as long as Panasonic and OMD decide to keep making cameras, and will continue on for years after that because it has a dedicated user base. While I'm in the process of downsizing my M43 gear, I still plan to keep a GH5 and a couple lenses. In a couple of years, if I'm still with Panasonic, I'll probably pick up a used GH6 to replace it. Is the "heyday" over? Probably, but people have been rushing to proclaim the system dead for years. Unless you're looking to invest into the system, I wouldn't worry about it.

BE NICE! I did, I was a backer and got the DVD a little while back! I liked it, though I wish they'd leaned into horror more like he did with the original. But the commitment to creating something like that, I have no choice but to love it. Watch it with the Trader Tony commentary on if you haven't already, it's hilarious! That's dope! Both Chris and Jimmy George seem like really cool dudes, though I don't think Jimmy worked on the sequel due to the pandemic. I've really enjoyed all their films!

I've defended Gerald a lot on this forum, but when you do those analyses and then completely downplay the results or say they're not important because you're in the bag for Sony, you do more harm misleading people than the reviewers that just gush about how great every camera that is sent to them is. He built a reputation for his technical, long form reviews that were neutral and even-handed. Now that reputation is used to shill a company. It's dishonest, far more so than those that just give their opinions. And whether we like it or not, these people DO influence a lot of people's purchasing decisions. Whether you're one of those people or not, his move from being objective to significantly less so should be disappointing.

WNUF getting love makes me happy!

The Z9 is the only camera out there right now that I really wish I could afford. I like everything I see from it. That it's constantly out of stock seems like it's a huge success.

It wouldn't shock me at all. There will always be a market for monitors and recorders, but cameras are increasingly adding features and codecs that you needed recorders for in the past. The ability to record RAW was important short term, but it's only a matter of time before these companies develop their own flavor of RAW or implement ProRes RAW or BRAW directly, leaving Atomos out in the cold. It's hard to see where the camera industry will be in 5 years, let alone the monitor/recorder industry, but I imagine the former will be in better shape than the latter, especially with so many budget monitor options out there now and in the future.

It looks like a pretty decent camera, and the screen is awesome, but it doesn't seem to be a vast improvement over what Sony offers. Doesn't stop the usual suspects from gushing over it, though. Watching the Gerald Undone video, and it's really a bummer to see how much of a Sony shill he has become. He will bring up negatives, but then downplays them or just outright dismisses them as not important. Meanwhile, he'll temper his compliments of other cameras. The titles of his reviews from the last year or so really sum it up, honestly. Sony a7R V Review: A Fantastic Camera! Sony a7 IV Review: The Best Hybrid Camera for the Money! Sony Alpha 1: A VERY IMPRESSIVE Camera! (Sony a1 Review) Sony FX30 Review: Good Camera. Great Value! SONY ZV-E10 Review: Sony's BEST Budget Camera The SONY a7S III: A Technical MASTERPIECE! The SONY a7C: Why THIS Camera Is IMPORTANT! vs. Canon R3 Review: 10 Things I Love/Hate Fujifilm X-H2S: A Very Nerdy Review & Technical Guide Nikon Z6 II - Video Review & Blackmagic RAW Discussion The PANASONIC S5: A STRANGE but POWERFUL Camera Sigma fp L Review: A VERY CONFUSING Camera! Kinefinity MAVO Edge 6K: An Undone Review I don't even think he does it on purpose (or maybe he does?) But it feels like we're far ways from what made him appealing to me in the first place, which was a measured analysis of a camera's capabilities.

Lots of initial impressions/reviews getting posted. The video seems to be comparable to the A1 for significantly less money, with the major difference being 10 bit is available in all video modes. 60MP BSI CMOS sensor Improved AF with subject recognition In-body stabilization rated at up to 8.0EV Continuous shooting at up to 10fps with flash (JPEG or Lossy compressed Raw) 8K/24p or 4K/60p video (both with 1.24x crop) Full-width 4K up to 30p 10-bit 4:2:2 video options, including S-Log3, S-Cinetone and HLG Fully-articulated rear screen on tilt-out cradle Focus bracketing mode (with stacking via computer) Multi-shot pixel shift high res mode with motion compensation (via computer) 2 x 2 MIMO Wi-Fi UVC/UAC USB-standard video for use as webcam

That entire series is excellent, especially that entry. What about one of the older BM cameras?

Apple M1 Pro 10-Core Chip 16GB Unified RAM | 1TB SSD 14.2" 3024 x 1964 Liquid Retina XDR Screen 16-Core GPU | 16-Core Neural Engine

I've been using it for about a year now and some of the results are genuinely astonishing. I just got the update, too, and have been impressed. On my M1 Pro MacBook Pro it does about 10fps, so it's not TOO bad, especially if you come from the days when it'd take hours to render stuff. I mostly use it to upscale old footage; decent 480i footage upscales quite nicely. I can't say that it looks like native 1080p but it's not that far. Their photo software is also very impressive, maybe even more than Video AI.

Agree with all of this. --- I think it's great that cameras are adding ProRes as there are clients that demand it, but the bitrates in 4K are just too much for the bulk of my work, and the editing performance on my M1 Pro MacBook Pro really isn't that much better than h.264. My modest MacBook Pro can handle four camera 4K multicam editing with color correction, titles, and motion graphics with ease. I haven't used h.265, but I've heard it's pretty easy to edit.

It really depends. I think for 90+% of my work 150Mbit is more than enough if I don't need to push the image around in post much. Storing/archiving the footage is a big factor. When you're filming a multi-cam live event and have four cameras with 3-4 hours of footage from each camera that gets to be a lot of space, especially when you're doing it multiple times a month. I've honestly thought about transcoding some of the unedited footage to save space. I really need to work on a server instead of using 5TB drives and try doing off site backups, but it gets to be so expensive.

My guess is focusing is an issue. It's an amazing camera, and I do think the AF is better than people give it credit for, but it's not perfect and I run into the same problem from time to time.

Cancer has literally taken away everyone I have ever loved the most. First it took my Grammy, then it took my Papa, then it took my Mom, and earlier this year it took one of my pups. To say that I hate it with all of my heart would be an understatement. Hearing how many people talk about how it has impacted them breaks my heart. I hope I'm alive to see the day when we finally beat this disease. It won't bring our loved ones back, but if it'll make sure no one has to feel how the way I did holding my Mom's hands as she slowly

The thing is, in any film that's meant to take place in a post apocalyptic environment, that environment is like another character ESPECIALLY when it's something as iconic as Las Vegas. You really kind of squander that though when it's all just a blur in the background of every shot. I found it obnoxious, and felt that it hurt the film. It's also one of the few times I've seen normal people notice shallow depth of field (though they didn't use that terminology) and talk about it.

It's like Zack Snyder was possessed by Tony Northrup! Too much toneh!

And the film suffered because of it, I think. Sorry, just had to say it!

Yeah, I was shocked at how reasonable it was, at least on first glance. I do wonder if there's a catch. I didn't look too deeply into it. I think the music industry is starting to understand, with the way things have gone, that it makes more sense to play ball so to speak. I'm pretty satisfied with Artlist.io personally, and don't really have use for using a song as a one off for YouTube, so I don't really see myself using it, but it's cool that it's out there.

Yeah, it's probably lickd. It allows you to license "mainstream" music for like $8 per video.

Sorry 😔

Cinematch might be something that can help you, given it has profiles for all these cameras. It might be able to get you closer than Lumetri.