newfoundmass

Exactly this! I don't want to come off as though I am trashing my friends in the industry who complain or who had to move back home after moving to the big city with big dreams, but they all had the same things in common: leasing vehicles that were way too expensive, getting apartments that were too big (and expensive) for them, didn't want to take jobs that they didn't think they'd enjoy, constantly spending money (often on credit) to purchase new gear they didn't need, etc. Just unnecessary spending. They don't fully understand or appreciate the freedom this job can give them if they just changed their outlook. I too would love if every job I took was interesting and tickled my creativity, but if I'm pretty lucky being able live comfortably with low living costs and no real boss. I'll take it over office or labor work anytime!

I don't think you're part of the problem, really. Like you said, if you weren't doing it there's a good chance it wouldn't be done at all. And the truth is, for a lot of work, "good enough" is just that: good enough. For better or worse, today you can show an average business owner something crappy put together using the AI in CapCut or whatever and their socks will be blown off. So doing something better than that, even if it's not something that you consider your best work or are even that proud of, is fine, at least in my eyes. The tiny house movement is kind of what inspired me, honestly. I could never live in one of those, too small, but a nice mobile home with 1200 square feet? That's enough to have a decent sized bedroom, an office for my video work/gear, and then a good sized living room and kitchen. I've always been someone that prizes function over everything else. My 15 year old vehicle? It ain't pretty but it does everything I need it to do and then some. Mobile home? I own it outright, have low property taxes, and it's more than a decent enough place to rest my head and work out of. These are things I value over everything. When you temper your expectations, re: where you live, what kind of house you live in, what kind of clothes you wear, what kind of car you drive, etc. you become less impacted by industry changes. We could all, as human beings, stand to be a lot more economical. Almost everything in my home is used, from my furniture (all of it except my bed, my one luxury) to my pots, silverware and dishes. It not only was cheap, but it helped create a lot less waste. Most of my clothes? Second hand when I can find things my size, except for my underwear and socks! So if next year another pandemic happens, I'm pretty much in a position where I can survive that without too much hardship financially. Kinda off topic I suppose, but I do think people would benefit from looking at things differently so that maybe you don't have to quit that dream job if you learn to live more economical. Living on a budget doesn't mean living in poverty!

It was something people should've seen coming a long time ago. So many folks moved to these larger cities, in part because of the amount of work there was, not realizing how oversaturated it'd quickly get. I know so many people who moved to Nashville, Atlanta, Portland, Austin, and other cities thinking they'd do great there. And at first they did pretty good. They were booked up solid doing music videos and social media content, among other things. But more and more "creatives" moved to these areas, and then businesses started taking social media content in-house, so jobs dried up. A lot of them ended up doing jobs they thought they'd left behind (weddings!), moved to another city (where the same thing happened), or moved back home. Video jobs will always exist, to some extent, it's just a matter of being in the right place and being willing to take jobs that you don't like/enjoy. Those folks who thought they'd moved on from having to film weddings might need to start doing jobs like that again. Maybe being the camera op for the local cable access channel filming school board meetings might be necessary. It's not glamorous or fun, but it's work. I never stopped doing jobs like that. $50 for two hours of work filming a school board meeting or a city council meeting isn't exciting, but it helps pay the bills. I live in a mobile home. It's bought and paid for. It's a nice one in a nice community. I pay a lot fee of $340 a month. Even if I had a mortgage it'd cost a lot less than an apartment even with the lot fee. It's not glamorous, but I own it and it's affordable living. From doing public access work alone my lot fee is paid for every month. Pre-covid I'd considered selling my mobile home and buying a house, since I was doing really good. I don't care about the stigma or prejudices people have towards mobile homes and their communities, but owning a house and property where I wasn't restricted by the mobile home park's rules appealed to me. At the end of the day though I decided against it because I was able to live comfortably. If I'd gone ahead with it though COVID would've killed me financially even worse than it did. I was able to weather it because of how cheaply I'm able to live. My work would need to take an huge hit before my lifestyle became unsustainable. Making this job work for you might require changing how you live and being willing to take jobs that are "below" you. It's a hard pill to swallow, since we all got into this because of our desire to create and be creative, but it's no different than everyone else who has a job that they dislike. I hope that makes sense haha

Honestly it SHOULD be a better career option than shooting professional video with RED. People's lives and safety depend on train operators. --- In my area, which is mostly rural, I am offered more jobs than I need/want. There aren't tons of videographers in my neck of the woods, so there is a lot less competition. In an area like Portland, Oregon it doesn't surprise me that it is becoming harder though, especially in specialized areas like drone videography which I think is what this guy specialized in. Anyone can buy a DJI drone and get impressive visuals with almost no skill, as the drones do a lot of the work for you. I've seen all this before. I started in video when I was 12 years old. Working in video was an expensive endeavor and very specialized back then. Things changed when everything went digital and all of the sudden anyone could buy a $500 miniDV camera and a copy of Pinnacle Studio for $99 at Staples or Best Buy. I used to get hired in my teen years to film and edit birthday parties, recitals, sports games, and other stuff people wanted to have filmed for their own collection. I used to go to sports games and film things myself, then sell VHS tapes of the games for parents to buy! It was great and paid for all my equipment! But everything changed once video became less specialized and Dads could buy a camera and editing software to do it all themselves. Soon every computer came with editing software, like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. Then YouTube became a thing! Then everyone had a video camera in their pocket when phones started adding cameras! All of these things, to some extent or another, impacted our industry and has continued to. With each step more and more folks found themselves either out of work or needing to adapt. As new things pop up we'll continue to need to adapt. It's not unique to just us, though. I know someone who became a millionaire off of building websites who now mostly gets work specializing in helping folks with Wordpress and Squarespace websites. I know a print shop and marketing owner who used to be able to employ 6 full time people who now works alone because many local businesses have taken marketing in house since they can just get one of their younger employees to figure out how to use Canva. It's happening really everywhere. All you can do is adapt. Not everyone though is going to be able to, especially the more specialized their work is cause once that becomes less specialized there isn't a lot you can do about it.

It really is an excellent lens. I use it for pro-wrestling around ringside, because if it gets damaged it's not a big loss since they are so affordable but I also don't feel like I am sacrificing image quality by using it.

I didn't see em at B&H. I see they sell them directly from their site though. Interesting. I think I will wait for B&H or Adorama though to carry them before I take the plunge, as it'll be easier to return them if necessary, etc.

Yeah, the only affordable third party lenses are the manual primes that companies like TTArtisan have made for RF, E, and L mount. From what I've seen they are pretty good, too, but even those are a little pricey when you consider that the TTArtisan 50mm f/1.4 is only a hundred dollars less than the Lumix 50mm f1.8 when it's on sale. I think it's probably worth spending the extra $120 to get the Lumix with auto focus even though it's a little slower. Hopefully Viltrox, Meike and others that released auto focusing lenses for E-mount start releasing them for L-mount. I think it'd be a kick in the arm.

They really are great and well thought out. Love that they are all the same size. They definitely were thinking of video shooters when they made them. Honestly I've been impressed with every L-mount Lumix lens I've used. Even the 20-60 kit lens is excellent. Easily the best kit lens I've ever used. I have yet to use any Sigma lenses though, as until I got the S5II X I didn't think they were worth getting because I'd heard the auto focus with contrast detect auto focus cameras wasn't as good.

I think L-Mount's weakness, re: lenses, is in a more affordable/consumer sense. Sony and Canon have a lot of options, for all price brackets, that L-Mount doesn't hit. I think Lumix has a bigger issue than not having affordable lenses that average users can get (namely getting their cameras into the hands of average users to begin with) BUT it probably doesn't help. Average users, and heck, even some enthusiasts, don't always need f1.8 or f1.4 lenses. A bargain set of compact f2.8 primes wouldn't hurt the system, I don't think. With that said, their current lenses are excellent and are among my favorite I've ever used, as far as new lenses go. I also think they are excellent value for what they are, though I know some people can't get over how much more expensive they are vs. their Sony and Canon counterparts, particularly the f1.8 primes. But the build quality and optical performance of the f1.8 primes blow both Sony and Canon's out of the water. Still, price often is what dictates people's spending habits. I do wish Tamron would enter the L-mount, but I have a feeling that they don't because Sony owns a piece of them. They've rolled out lenses for pretty much every other mount at this point, even RF, so there has to be some reason for that. I suppose you could argue it's because there isn't a big enough customer base, but Fujifilm might have an even smaller one and they've released lenses for them.

The holidays haven't been the same since my Mom passed in 2016, but I am trying to make the most of them after beating cancer last year! As far as cameras, I think I am set for 2025. I MIGHT swap out my two S5s for S5IIs, depending on how the year goes. Not that I am unhappy with my S5s, it would just make matching them with my S5II X in post easier. I also might snag a S9... we'll see! But overall I am pretty settled until I see how things look next year or in 2026, as far as Lumix goes. What I have (two S5s and a S5II X) are honestly cameras I could use until the wheels fall off and I'd be happy with them, I'm more just looking at the long term big picture as far as where I end up. Happy holidays to all of you!

Yeah, my criticisms are directed toward Panasonic/Lumix as a whole, not at the staff who are doing the best with what they are given. There isn't much Sean can do without permission from the higher ups.

Ah yes, the mythical "basic consumers" out there snatching up Lumix cameras! I'm all for going after casual users, but these cameras ain't it. No one getting into mirrorless cameras (or starting a YouTube channel) is going to pick up a G97 over the Sony ZV-E10 or Canon R50, as both are significantly more affordable, are more popular brands, and have features people want like PDAF. I am fully invested in Lumix cameras and lenses, but even I wouldn't recommend the G97 to a casual user.

This. A big part is these businesses are just stuck in their ways. They don't take risks and there is no sense of urgency, even when they're in last place and showing minimal growth. There's no attempt to radically change up how marketing is done and they put no effort into directly reaching out to their community. The biggest change any of these companies have made is to include influencers and "content creators" with the press who get review units and are flown out on exotic trips, but that's not much different than what they've been doing for the last 60 years anyway. They should have representatives in every major Facebook group, every major video/photography forum, etc. Interacting with users every day. If/when a S1H replacement comes out, give a really talented filmmaker a budget for a short narrative film with the only limitation being they have to use the Panny camera and lenses. Then document it and release it as a series. Give a camera to a sports video shooter and document their use of it. A music video shooter. A news reporter. A TikToker. A High School A/V class. Just show the world what your cameras and lenses are capable of! That'd all be a lot more useful than the typical boring short doc or a video of a photoshoot in the deserts of Morocco that they usually put out. These ideas aren't even that radical. Some are ideas they've scratched the surface of but haven't fully explored. There's just so much more they could be doing but they don't.

I don't think you have to choose one or the other, but regardless, the issue is that if they DO need to choose one or the other they should communicate that to their userbase. Instead there's silence. If your userbase feels abandoned as some S1/S1R/S1H users obviously do, you should probably do something about that, especially if you're the #4 or #5 camera company that can't really afford to lose users.

I don't think people are asking to do away with the firmware updates in exchange for more frequent camera releases. 6 years is a long time though in-between camera updates especially without any communication with your userbase about what comes next. I get why early adopters would feel a bit nervous.

Since the GH5 it certainly has been a rollercoaster for Panasonic. It feels like when they move forward they always end up taking a few steps back, too. That's what I find most frustrating about them. I've warmed up to the S9. I think the S5II and the S5II X are fantastic. I'd argue they are the best value out there right now, aside from a used S5. I think the GH7 and the G9II are both great entries for M43 users. These are all recent cameras that show that Panasonic is still cable of putting out quality and competitive cameras. But we literally have no clue what the future holds. There are reasons, both good and bad, as to why you might want to keep things tight to the chest, but they need to realize that their position in the market doesn't afford them that luxury. If they want to maintain their loyal users, let alone grow the user base, they need to be more aggressive. I'm not ready to jump ship and I am not freaking out yet about their full frame cameras. I can run these S5 and S5II bodies for years to come, I'm not going to buy a S2H or whatever anyway. But it would be nice to know that Panasonic sees a future for users like me so that I can make informed plans a few years down the road without wondering if Panasonic is committed to their camera business or not. Sony or Canon users don't even have to worry about this stuff; as a 10+ year user of Pansonic dating back to the GH3 it'd be nice to not to have to worry about it either. --- This camera, though, doesn't need to exist. I don't think there was much of a demand for a G95 let alone a slightly updated model that lacks the one feature a significant part of the market wants out of any camera: PDAF. I can't recommend this to my nephew who is getting interested in vlogging (goodness help me!) I can't really recommend it to anyone I know who is looking to take the step up from their phone either because even though it is a step up I can't really say this is a better value than what Canon, Sony, Fuji, or Nikon are offering in this entry level market. I don't want to recommend a Canon or Sony camera, but I would over this. If Panasonic is going to keep m43 around, they should've just blown up any plans they had for the G97, phased out the G95, and put resources in developing a camera the size of the G100 that has IBIS, PDAF, no crop, and can at least record 30 minutes without overheating and use that for an entry level/vlogging camera. At least you could look at a camera like that and think "hey, they are actually trying something different and building on the promise of m43!" And it could actually have an appeal in getting new users who don't wanna carry around bigger cameras.

Even as a freebie I don't want that lens. It's a waste of materials. At best it'll end up collecting dust in a drawer or worse, end up as waste in a landfill.

I loved my G85s. For a camera that was released in 2016 they were excellent value, probably amongst the best values of that era. That was 8 years ago though and cameras have come a long, long way since then. I don't expect it to be as good as the GH7, but it should probably, at minimum, include the one feature that the marketplace has made clear they want: PDAF. An entry level camera is supposed to be the entry way into a camera system. Something that entices the customer to choose that system over the others. I really don't see how on earth this accomplishes that. Even if that is the case, I'd have just quietly released it without any press because this release was never going to be met with anything but frustration and disbelief. It's just another example of how inept Panasonic is with their PR and marketing.

Seriously, who is going to buy that camera? Who is it for?!

You thought Lumix had left behind DfD behind? You're wrong! What a shame.

props to Rode

they mentioned having been in Japan and being tired while filming this

Marketing and communication are both weaknesses of Lumix. They get held to a different standard, and that's unfair, but they need overcome that. I mentioned it in the other thread, but I'd still be shooting m43 if it didn't feel like they were abandoning it three years ago. From the lack of info on a successor to the GH5, the "WTF" releases (G100?!), and the focus on full frame, it just seemed like we were being forgotten. Even now, we really don't have much info on what Lumix is working on. That announcement later this month could be for literally anything. Could it be an update for the S1 line? A G200? Could it be a lens? Or a major firmware update? We have no real road map to give us an idea.

I understand the backlash. You release a compact camera but have no compact lenses to go with it, EXCEPT the weird f8 lens it launched with. It just didn't make sense. There weren't a ton of reasons to get an S9 if you were going to need to use larger lenses anyway. I think it'd be really cool if they released some small f2 or f2.8 primes to go with it.

I don't think it was stupid to have a recording limitation. If anything it was being honest: this isn't a camera that should be doing long takes and if you do so, you do it at your own risk as it can damage the camera.