newfoundmass

It's not under $200 but I've been very happy with the Zoom H6 overall. 

If weight is important, make sure to factor in lenses. APS-C lenses weigh more than most M43 lenses, so even if the body weighs more, overall it may weigh less. 

I really like what Fuji is doing, but they don't tick enough boxes for most of my uses yet. If they can get their IBIS to Panasonic's level and eliminate recording limits, as well as some of the other video quirks, that could change!

I think he's being a bit tongue and cheek! 

I like Caleb. I wish he didn't do the click bait titles, but he pretty much exclusively reviews cameras that he has bought.

Yeah, Facebook proves people are willing to be as awful under their real names as they are under aliases. 

Though I do think when someone is being condescending to others and acting as though their experience is more significant/important than others, they should be compelled to show who they are and what they've done, otherwise they're just denigrating others work and experience while hiding behind anonymity. 

It's not too difficult to see @IronFilm's work/experience, as I subscribe to his YouTube and see him active on Facebook groups, so seeing someone diminish his knowledge and experience by just calling him "an audio guy" really kinda ticks me off. 

I assume most equipment is disposable at this point, either because eventually something significantly better comes along or because everything seems to have a shelf life these days. 

I've always thought, or assumed, that lenses would be the one thing that both retain most of their value and will continue to work long after any camera I'm using does. It's only recently that I've started to have my doubts about that, at least when it comes to modern lenses that have motors and lack real manual control. 

My Minolta lenses are older than I am. There's a good chance they'll outlive me and still work! But I don't have high expectations for my Panasonic lenses lasting nearly that long, and that's unfortunate. Part of that is the compromise that comes with technology, but also just the way things have gone with society. 

I don't think I'll ever be able to pull the trigger and pay more than $1,500 on a modern, non manual lens. Not unless I have no other choice or am wealthy/making enough to do so without a second thought. The idea that it could just stop working one day terrifies me. Once that motor is gone, it's gone. 

I also wonder how these lenses will stand up to video usage over time, since I assume that puts more wear and tear on the motors than just auto focusing for stills does. But that might just be my ignorance showing! 

48 minutes ago, Super8 said:

What does it have to do with audio man?

What does his knowledge of audio have to do with this discussion? Does that make his opinion on cameras mean less or something? You realize his professional experience goes beyond sound, right?

Most of us have experience in all forms of filmmaking. It's kind of a necessity when you do your own thing or work with a small crew. He's here for the same reason as you and me. 

Stop being condescending to people. It's unnecessary. 

I love Gunpowder

1 hour ago, Super8 said:

You're a sound guy.  Not sure you have a dog in this hunt do you?

He's on a camera forum. 

The LX100 is a lovely camera, but as you said, the lack of IBIS hurts it. I guess you kinda have to weigh that against using larger or slower lenses. The GX85 and the 12-35 isn't that big of a combo; you could easily find a little pouch to put it in if necessary. My favorite hoodie has huge pockets so I put the lens in one and the body in the other

They're not going to use a new lens mount, but I think/hoping they've finally decided to change the overall design of the camera to accommodate the processing power needed. 

Is it just the Olympus zooms that have the manual focus clutch? My 7-14 has it and I LOVE it. I wish Panasonic would implement it on all their lenses. 

Daemono, do you work for Panasonic? It's just weird that you've predominantly post just to defend this camera... 

On 6/28/2020 at 6:52 PM, Super8 said:

When?  This is crazy fanboy talk. 

Of course any independent film can be called a feature film.  That doesn't help your argument.

The run and gun statement doesn't work for the P4K does it? Big an bulky when rigged out and no AF.

It's sad that advice is thrown around the EOS and people spend thousands on gear and get investors involved because someone said "The power of the GH5/S, the Pocket 4K, etc. is that you CAN use it for a feature and get great results."

Have some standards and support the DP's that suggest using cine cameras when they're called for.  I little homework and investment in time would get you much better results that are great.

It's not fan boy talk at all. Go on the Frugal Filmmaker Facebook group and ask how many have shot features on the GH5. Heck, the user escapes me right now, but I recall someone here posting a trailer for their feature shot on a GH5 and it was beautiful. It was even mostly shot at night! 

In a world where DV camcorders and iPhones have been used to shoot features with wide releases, it's asinine to act as though a GH5 couldn't be used to great effect. It's the art and artists, not the camera that matters. 

29 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Don't think he said redesign did he?... More like 'Everything is new compared to the 5 year old camera'. So obviously a new sensor, LSI, EVF and so on.

I'll be very pleasantly surprised if they do a design adventure.

Change the concept around.

Internal ND.

Small XC10 style camera.

Brand new menus.

But to be honest, despite the lack of adventures and bravery in new design concepts, I am quite happy with mirrorless form factor as it is. Hybrid stills / video is my thing.

PS I cannot promise to review the A7S III or even EOS R5, because I will have to buy them and I think rather than putting $4k into another corporation's bank account we should reward innovation at better prices, from Fuji, Sigma, Panasonic and others.

Canon and Sony have practically ignored us for 5 years and now suddenly they want our money again.

Bear this in mind when you see all the stage-managed YouTube hype next month about 8K and RAW.

"Right now we’re focused on the launch of the new camera, and it will be a complete redesign of the whole system, including the image sensor. Everything is new." 

I took redesign to mean they have redesigned the camera. I might've read too much into that though!

I was more intrigued by the comment they made about it being a complete redesign. I think that is a good sign. I'm sure it'll still be uncomfortable to hold since that's Sony's thing, ha ha, but I'm guessing they realized they needed to increase the size to accommodate the higher end features that just haven't been possible with the standard bodies they've been using. 

1 hour ago, DAEMANO said:

It will be a fine travel companion for those invested in the lens system even if it's doesn't introduce tons of bleeding edge tech. The new mic system and viewfinder are good though.

Look, I get it, Panasonic probably shouldn't have pushed the vlogging angle so hard, but the G100 is not a crap camera.

What about it makes it a better travel camera than the GX85 or the GX9? Megapixels? Weight? C'mon. 

The G100: when 210 grams is just too heavy for you! Here's a camera that weighs less, costs more, and has fewer features!

Z-cam definitely needs a FAQ or knowledge base on its website, because the Facebook group can be very overwhelming. 

The entire argument is silly. Countless low budget features, music videos, docs, short films, commercials, events, etc. have all been shot with a GH5 and other M43 cameras. The fact that major features aren't shot on M43 doesn't mean it's because the cameras aren't capable or that M43 isn't good enough, it merely means that films that have the budget are going to use the same cameras that always get used. They're not using Blackmagic or Z-Cam much either, despite their larger sensor offerings, which shows it goes beyond just sensor size. Heck, Canon has largely failed at getting their cinema line adopted by Hollywood, too. 

The power of the GH5/S, the Pocket 4K, etc. is that you CAN use it for a feature and get great results. You can use it for a run and gun documentary, or event too. That's the strength of the system. It's incredibly versatile. You're not limited by the camera, just your abilities. 

If you can't understand or see the benefit of all that, then there's really no point in arguing. Just write the system off and let the rest of us appreciate our tiny but powerful cameras in peace. 

Another M43 shooter here. 

The G100 is trash, even in the context of a "starter" vlogging camera. It pains me to say but no amount of excuses will change that. It's inexcusable. There's literally no reason for it to exist; no one asked for it. Not vloggers and certainly not enthusiasts or professionals. 

I don't even mean to encourage them to just take a GX85 and add a flip screen and mic, because that'd have been bullshit too, but it'd still be much better than what they did with the G100. 

It is genuinely concerning that this thing even moved beyond a pitch, let alone production. The Lx100 II and G95 might've been disappointing updates, but at least they improved and added something. This though? It's a crippled camera that would make even Canon blush. 

Camera Conspiracies is definitely satire, with the occasional good point here and there. Half the time he has no idea what he's doing, which is part of the charm. He makes fun of everyone, especially himself. Example: Instead of f-stop he calls it Toneh, as a dig on Tony Northrup after Tony posted this video:

I don't know what Tony was thinking here. "I'm gonna go on the beach and shoot wide open so you can't see anything behind me. Oh and I'll frame myself terribly."

Eventually people were so confused about why he was calling it Toneh that he made a video about it

Once you get where he's coming from he's one of the most entertaining channels on YouTube. 

Have you seen the Canon Cripple Hammer? 

And the Panasonic Pony of Hope? 

The Z-Cam folks definitely seem receptive. In many ways they're a model for what more companies should be doing. You can't compare them to anyone else in the camera game when it comes to listening to their user base, they're unmatched. I don't know that they'll be able to continue that as they get larger, but I certainly hope so! 

The users though are definitely fervent, and it's not always endearing. It seems your best bet, before criticizing anything, is to heap praise first or risk getting their fan base riled up. 

I watched Gerald's original review and I thought it was fair, and pointed out serious issues. I really didn't expect it to get the reaction it got. 

39 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I feel really sorry to write this blog post after all Panasonic have done for us over the years.

GH1, GH2, GH4, GH5, GH5S, S1, S1H, LX100, a long stream of affordable 4K cameras and a big commitment to enthusiasts and filmmakers!

But recently I feel they are making absolutely bone-headed decisions. Who is responsible?

Thoughts on Panasonic G100 – Why they got it so VERY wrong https://www.eoshd.com/news/thoughts-on-panasonic-g100-why-they-got-it-so-very-wrong/

The LX100ii and G95 were legitimately the most I've ever been disappointed by camera announcements. They were such easy home runs, I couldn't imagine Panasonic striking out on them. 

I really, really hope this isn't a sign of things to come from Panasonic. 

21 minutes ago, rawshooter said:

Problem is, in the allegedly "good old times" pre-Internet, things were just as bad. By far most camera magazines in the past were just shills, too. Their reviewers were invited to expensive trips, advertorials were the norm etc.etc. So these practices have just moved over from print to social media.

Back then though you went into it knowing that there was a business relationship between the press and companies, and also that most of those journalists went to journalism school and practiced standard journalism ethics.

As things moved to the internet, there was an influx of blogs much like this one, where you could get honest opinions. YouTube/Vimeo/etc too. The people writing and creating content were just like us, and you went into it knowing that. Now we're where we are today, where the dynamic has changed. And once neutral parties that you trusted can overnight turn into shills. It's incredibly frustrating and damaging. 

2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Here is an idea for all the camera companies.

How about instead of flying everybody to Hawaii they start a fund for proper journalists and artists.

From that fund, lots of great resources about cameras will spring and it will inspire others to take up the hobby or career of photos / videos.

The shilling thing will eat itself eventually anyway and kill YouTube completely as a trustworthy website.

They could do a lot of things, I think, to help but I think companies in general have a problem thinking outside the box, especially if it means giving up control. I mean, even the current YouTube / influencer model was something that was literally thrown into their lap and was only embraced given how beneficial/one sided it was to them. "You mean we can send these people stuff and they'll make enthusiastic 'reviews' even if the product isn't great? That they'll do it almost exclusively for free stuff, access to us , and the revenue they can make from affiliate links?!"

Long term it'd be for everyone's benefit to properly fund journalist and art programs that can help grow the video / photography community, but I can't see a scenario where they'd do it because it'd mean giving up a level of control that they're not comfortable with.