newfoundmass

If the GH7 had come out three years ago I'd still be a m43 shooter. I only made the change because I thought Lumix had abandoned m43 and the S5 on the used market was such a bargain. It was like, do I hold on to all this m43 gear and hope Lumix comes out with a camera that works for me or do I offload this gear while it still has value and switch to something else? The full frame look never blew me away the way it did others. For me the primary benefit has been the better low light, but as you said @Andrew Reidthe low light on the latest m43 cameras has been pretty darn good, certainly "good enough" for most of us. I sparingly want shallow depth of field, so I'm often shooting at f4 or more anyway. Is it nice to be able to throw on one of the fantastic Lumix f1.8 prime lenses and get really shallow depth of field when I want it? Yeah, but I usually only want that for stills not video and I can count maybe two or three dozen times in the last 3 years when I've wanted that look. That's not a lot, and I can't sit here and say that if I'd been "forced" to settle for a f1.4 or f1.7 prime on m43 to achieve it that I wouldn't have been pleased with the results. I DO see an improvement in image quality, but I've also never been a stickler for that either. I loved the GH5 because of how it changed the way I shot, not because it had the best image quality or color science. For me, image quality and color were more than "good enough" even if they weren't THE BEST. I didn't need the best though, I just needed the features that the GH5 gave me that no other camera did. I used to have to use stabilizers to get useable handheld footage. All the sudden, because of IBIS and lens stabilization, I was able to get great handheld footage with nothing more than the camera, lens, a cage and a side handle. I could still get great footage even without the cage and side handle if I wanted to! That was HUGE. It was the greatest leap forward I'd had in changing my workflow since the switch from big clunky S-VHS and Betacam cameras to the Canon XL-1 and Canon GL-1 camcorders. There is still a lot to love about (and potential in!) m43. I miss the smaller, lightweight lenses of m43. I miss the smaller footprint overall (being able to take the GX85 with the 35-100 f2.8 into any venue with rules barring interchangeable lens cameras and not even raising an eyebrow was amazing!) I really, really wish they'd devote some resources to make truly small and compact cameras, because to me that is what is missing from the market. I don't want to use my phone because I don't get the same joy out of taking a picture or filming something with it. Could a modern Lumix GM1 work? I think so! I'd buy one and carry it with me everywhere! I think it'd even be a hit with the YouTube "creator" crowd. But yes, we really have kind of lost the plot when it comes to this whole hobby and industry as a whole. We've gotten so caught up in hype and specs, while placing less value in what got us into it to begin with and that's the process and the rewards. To me, that's the biggest difference between modern "creators" and those of us who have been doing this before becoming a YouTuber/creator/social media influencer ever became a career path. I shot with extremely limited cameras (compared to today), edited on linear editing systems like Videonics and Video Toaster, and had to devote a lot of time, patience, and passion into what I created, even if it was a project that was under 5 minutes in length. Even when things moved to digital and NLEs first became available for us poor folk (thank you to my college friends that got me academic discounts!), we'd have to still capture the footage and do a lot of the work in editing. Now you just film, dump the footage, bring it into your editor, and the NLE does a lot of the heavy lifting. It's why most of it all feels and looks the same. Fuck it, let's all just start filming on Betacam shoulder cams and Video Toaster again! Or at least mini-DV and old copies of Avid or Final Cut Pro! I know I still have my original Final Cut Pro 4, 5, 6 & 7 install discs somewhere!

I've been itching to buy this. I don't think I will because for my work it'd make sense to just get a S5II to go with my S5II X, but it reminds me of my beloved GX85, which I still regret selling. It's one of those cameras that you can walk around with and if you're using a small enough lens no one really bats an eye at you, whereas even stripped down people will look at me when I'm using my S5II X because I think people have been taught DSLR style bodies = professional camera. I'm glad to see you interested in cameras and posting again @Andrew Reid!

My little wrestling organization is looking to do more social media related content, so we decided to get a wireless system for it. Because it's professional wrestling I didn't want to spend a ton of money on it, as it could easily get damaged. I also didn't want to waste money on a system that had internal batteries, so that limited my options a lot. In the end I set out to accomplish a couple of things: Spend as little money as I possibly could while still achieving decent audio quality. Find a system that didn't feature internal non replaceable batteries. Find a system that had a decent enough build quality. Again, spend as little money as I could! With the focus being on small systems like the Rode Wireless Go and the dozens of knock offs, I knew that it was going to be difficult to find anything new under $200, which was my initial spending goal. Still, I looked and there were systems from Movo and Comica with so so reviews on YouTube, but as with most YouTube reviews these days I had to take them with a grain of salt because they were from smaller channels who I suspect will praise anything that is sent to them for free or channels that I feel have proven themselves to be biased. Regardless, these reviews weren't thorough and were essentially just someone testing them in their bed roo... er... "studio" and then, sometimes, going out into a field to do a range test. There isn't really much you can learn from these folks if they aren't putting the system through its paces. I started to think about spending a little extra and getting a Sennheiser or Sony system, which I could use for my non-wrestling work, but then I remembered the old Rode Rodelink systems that were the rage back in the day. Surely they'd be under $200 by now! I had experience with them and had also watched dozens of videos about them back in the day when YouTube wasn't just the marketing arm of all these companies. So I went to eBay, and typed in "Rodelink." Yeah, they were definitely under $200! Indeed, most of them were well under $100! There were lots of "Buy It Now" listings for $50, $75 and $100, most listed as being in "excellent condition." I scanned the listings and found one that was 5 hours away from ending. It had a "Buy It Now" price of $50 and a starting bid of $25. The pictures of the item looked like it was in pristine condition (it even still had the plastic screen protectors on the screens) and the listing said it was in "excellent condition, like new." It came with all the accessories. The seller was reputable, with 100% positive feedback and hundreds of reviews. So I said "eff it, I'll bid." What's the worst that could happen? Someone would probably come and snipe the auction at the last second anyway! They didn't. 5 hours later, as I woke up to go to the bathroom, I looked quickly at my phone and saw I'd won the bid. The winning bid? $25, shipping included. The Rodelink Wireless Filmmaker kit was still selling for $399 new as recently as 2022. On Monday mine arrived. I've pretty thoroughly tested it and I'm almost certain this unit was barely used. It has no scuffs on it, and like I said it still has the protective film on the screens. The sound quality is more than adequate and the included mic doesn't seem to have the RF interference that some folks used to get when using it. I could not be happier with the purchase, and short of one of the wrestlers destroying a receiver or transmitter I think this will last for years; certainly longer than any of the super small wireless systems with internal batteries will, anyway! Not bad for $25! Let this be a reminder that we don't need to always get the latest and greatest. There's a lot of great old gear out there that is more than adequate and will cost you a fraction of what you'd pay for new. The latest Rode systems aren't appreciably better than the old Rodelinks, at least not when you compare the prices. Is the $219 for the Rode Wireless Go II really have that much better sound than a Rodelink system you can get for 1/4 the price? And when the batteries in the Rode Wireless Go II die in a couple years and you can't replace them, the cheaper used Rodelink will still be going strong with replaceable AA batteries. Seems like a no brainer for me!

I don't understand why people accepted this to begin with. Most don't. My cousin bought me a pair of wireless Anker bluetooth headphones and while they still hold a charge fine, I was disappointed to find out they don't have a battery replacement program. They were $150.

We absolutely should cut down on headphones that don't have replaceable batteries, yes, and ask that companies either make batteries easily replaceable or offer a program where you can send in your headphones to get the battery replaced.

The use of internal, non-replaceable batteries continues to increase. For now it's not being done in professional grade equipment, but it very well could start and likely will. And these consumer and prosumer products are increasingly being used on smaller and medium size professional productions. Look at cell phones and laptops. My $1,000 Samsung phone is less than two years old and it's battery life has decreased significantly. The battery will die and make this phone useless sooner than the usability and functionality of the phone will, maybe before I even pay it fully off at this rate! My MacBook Pro M1 Max is 3 years old. The battery too has started to hold less of a charge. It too will be rendered useless by the battery dying before anything else on it goes. Just more stuff that will end up in a landfill.

Yes it does. If the battery dies and your $300 Wireless mic no longer works, that affects the final result. We shouldn't be spending money on items that don't have replaceable batteries and will end up in a landfill. These companies could very easily make it possible to put in new batteries. They just refuse to, because they want you to keep purchasing the latest iteration. It's wasteful, in a multitude of ways.

I just posted in the Black Friday post about how I picked up an old Rode Rodelink Filmmaking Kit for wireless audio because I refuse to purchase a system with internal batteries. Today Chris Judd just released this video about the topic. There are a multitude of reasons to care about this, whether you just care about the financial side or you care about the environmental side (or like me, both!) The value just isn't there and the e-waste it creates is unacceptable. Stop buying this stuff and make it known why!

I also bought a set of the Comica WM100 Plus dual transmitter and receiver kits for $55 that runs on UHF. They were in "like new" condition. They have decent reviews, so for that price I figured "why not?" We'll see how they work, but we really don't need anything fancy. As long as the audio is ok we'll be set. I looked at both the Sennheiser G3 and Sony UWP-D11 but I couldn't find any in what I thought was acceptable condition for under $300 and was trying to stay under the $150 price point if I could, since these are for a particular project (pro-wrestling) where they could get broken pretty easy. I'll probably end up buying the UWP-D11 for my own professional work, but these will do for now.

Not a Black Friday deal but a deal none the less: i needed a wireless mic system but refuse to buy one of those ones with non-replaceable batteries, so decided to see how much the old Rodelink Filmmaker Kits were going for on ebay... I bought one from a reputable seller that is listed as in "excellent" condition for $25 with free shipping. I bid, thinking it would probably get higher than that but nope, I won it for $25 and it'll arrive Friday. I'm quite happy!

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/11/final-cut-pro-11-begins-a-new-chapter-for-video-editing-on-mac/ Looks like it's a free update for FCPX users. It will be a while before I risk the upgrade, haha

A 1.5x crop on APSC? 😬

I don't think there's a better value out there than the S5ii (and the X) except maybe the original S5, which is an absolute steal on the used market. Having used the FX3 and the FX30, I just don't think either is a better camera than the S5II X. The only real benefit I can think of is Sony's larger user base and lenses.

It really is. It's the first kit lens that I'll often use professionally and not even bat an eye at the thought of it. It's not just "good for a kit lens" it's a good lens period.

That is probably why my experience hasn't been too bad with the S5 AF, as I use the Lumix lenses. The S5II X is leagues better, for sure, but I've always found the S5's auto focus to be pretty decent once you realize the limitations. The only time I'd consider it unusable is in low light and when you shoot wide open with a faster lens and are trying to track a subject that is moving around a bit. With my event shooting though I'm not shooting wide open very often unless I really need the light, because I don't really need/want shallow depth of field.

The S5 is a really great value, especially used. The AF isn't nearly as bad as people say, and manual focusing is a dream. There are better cameras out there but none of them are a better value. There has never been a better option for budget filmmaking IMO and I'd be hard pressed to say that any other camera out right now is worth the price difference on what you'd pay for this camera used. Think about what we paid for our first "real" camera and then think about how you can get a used full frame camera with pretty much every pro feature you could ask for for like $1000 USD used. 10 years ago my mind would have been unable to comprehend the value that is the S5 in 2024. I very much like my S5II X and will likely switch out my two S5 bodies for two S5II bodies in the next couple of years, but I do like the image out of the original S5 more. It's just really pleasing. No longer needing to color match them and enjoying the quality of life upgrades on the S5II outweighs the better image, but the S5II image is more than "good enough." I think I'll also end up probably getting an S9 as a personal/super low profile camera. It's actually nearly the perfect BTS/social media camera for my event shoots. Being able to hand it off to someone to film content for our IG, Facebook, and YouTube reels would be really great since it can shoot in open gate and be cropped for each platform.

The whole external fan thing rubs me the wrong way. You shouldn't have to spend hundreds of dollars to get consistent and reliable record times. But as we saw with the S9, if you put recording limits you get bashed. Still, it's insane to me that you have to buy an external device to ensure reliability.

Ideally it'd have better image quality than that, haha. But if they need to sacrifice build quality and some optical quality to hit a certain price point then there aren't a ton of reasons not to. Yes, people should save money in the long run and jump straight to the nicer lenses since they're one and done purchases, but that's just not the way it works most of the time.

It'd be the death nail for M43 so it wouldn't make sense in that regard. It's kind of a bummer that they didn't make the M43 lens mount larger when introducing it. I imagine they never thought they'd go full frame, but it'd have been really nice.

I agree, but one thing I think should be noted is just how good those Lumix lenses are for the price. They're built very well and are optically excellent. I can't say enough good things about them. But they do need budget options. Most entry level users are looking at the price first and foremost. Is that $350 Lumix prime nicer than the cheaper Canon or Sony equivalent? Yes, but those just getting started don't quite understand that, the first thing they notice is price. And when you can get an RP with a 24-105 kit lens for under $1200, that's a lot more enticing than an S5 with the 20-60 kit lens for $1700 even if the camera and lens are superior in every way. Mom and Dad don't know that when they're buying their son or daughter a camera for Christmas after finding out they're interested in photography.

I agree with you that they can't beat Sony (or Canon) at their own game, but they do need to entice more users into the system and a big part of that is being aggressive with pricing and offering more entry level cameras and lenses. These aren't going to be cameras or lenses that appeal to us, but ones that appeal to those who would just be getting their foot into the door. Lumix can't just rely on us, they need a bigger market share in general. Hoping that a niche product gains mass appeal is a risky business proposition, too. Yeah, I don't see a scenario where they give up on higher end full frame cameras because I'm not sure they could survive as a company that just releases mid-range cameras. I think they are in a tough situation where they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Would it be better to release an underwhelming S1H successor the way they did with the GH6? I learn towards "no." I think sensor tech has slowed down in general. It felt like every single day specs for new sensors would get posted, with people speculating on whether it would be used in a forthcoming camera from this brand or that brand. I know people who think Sony's sensor tech was impacted significantly from the earthquakes that have hit the country over the last 8 or so years and the supply chain issues that happened during COVID. That would kinda make sense about why almost everyone is still using a 6 year old sensor.

Honestly I'd consider dropping the S5 to near fire sale pricing as the entry level option into the L-mount/Lumix full frame family. I'd argue that it's still a great value at its current price, but there is just so much competition in that price range. The RP, R8, Z5, and A7C are all cheaper, and some of those even come with a kit lens for less. I'd definitely argue that the S5 is a superior camera to all of those, but Lumix is at an inherent disadvantage because Canon, Nikon and Sony have a much larger user base. So create a real incentive to try and entice people to dip their toe in. For all of their flaws, and there are a lot of them, Canon has always been smart when it comes to getting casual users to buy their cameras. The RP with a 24-105mm f/4-7.1 lens is $1,118. Is it a crappy lens? Absolutely, but for most people the first lens they use is the kit lens. I'd argue that Lumix's kit lenses are genuinely good lenses and are nicer than Canon and Sony, but they don't have anything comparable to the super cheap options from them.

I disagree. It's a much more honest approach, in my opinion, as you can reliably predict how long you can film with it. I am vehemently opposed to companies releasing cameras they know have overheating problems but still claim unlimited record times. Transparency and honesty should be encouraged. If I get the S9 I'll keep the recording limits on, both because I prefer predictability and because it makes me uncomfortable that by turning the recording limits off you agree that Lumix isn't responsible if you damage the camera's sensor. It's great, I guess, that Lumix begrudgingly gave users that option, but I personally don't care to risk it. I have three other cameras I can use in the event I need to film with no limits.

It wouldn't normally interest me, but on the S9 that's a nice compact set up and the images I've seen with it are pretty decent. For shooting in public where you're not trying to draw attention, that's a really nice little set up. I'm take the slow lens with variable aperture if it means I can have a small setup like that I can take anywhere with me.

Honestly, if they had released the new kit lens with it (I'm guessing it was supposed to be but it was delayed) the S9 would have been a much more compelling release on launch. I am debating getting it now, because that set up is so small and inconspicuous, something I haven't had since getting rid of my Gx85.