newfoundmass

Global shutter is cool and all, but not having it really hasn't impacted my work given how good RS has gotten. 
I see this as being a much bigger deal for photography than video. 

Call me cynical but …

Out of all the mirrorless mounts it makes the most sense that they'd go with the L-mount due to its open nature. There aren't really many alternatives. 

Canon was always going to have an advantage because of their legacy lenses and near native performance on their RF cameras. Plus the name is just massive.
 
I think though that camera sales are only part of the picture. Are those people buying new lenses, or are they using their legacy lenses on the new bodies?
 
Also, what is the regional break down? I see A LOT Sony cameras these days, especially professionally. Most social media and web content teams use them for photo and video, from local companies to national companies (my friends working for WWE, All Elite Wrestling, and the UFC all shoot on Sony, for example.) The social media teams for most major venues in my neck of the woods, like TD Garden in Boston, also are using mostly Sony. But I'm also located in the Northeast United States/New England, so it might be different in other parts of the world or even other parts of the country. I also want to, but cannot for certain, say that Sony has the edge here for wedding shooters, though Canon has a heavy presence there too, especially amongst older professionals.

Canon was always going to have an advantage because of their legacy lenses and near native performance on their RF cameras. Plus the name is just massive.
 
I think though that camera sales are only part of the picture. Are those people buying new lenses, or are they using their legacy lenses on the new bodies?
 
Also, what is the regional break down? I see A LOT Sony cameras these days, especially professionally. Most social media and web content teams use them for photo and video, from local companies to national companies (my friends working for WWE, All Elite Wrestling, and the UFC all shoot on Sony, for example.) The social media teams for most major venues in my neck of the woods, like TD Garden in Boston, also are using mostly Sony. But I'm also located in the Northeast United States/New England, so it might be different in other parts of the world or even other parts of the country. I also want to, but cannot for certain, say that Sony has the edge here for wedding shooters, though Canon has a heavy presence there too, especially amongst older professionals.

I love the retro body so much.

There is an optimum resolution and sharpness.  More is not always better.  
This is why movies aren't all shot with the highest MTF lenses currently available - DoPs choose the optimal lenses and apertures for the scene / project.
However, I shoot with cheap cameras (iPhone, GX85, GH5, etc) which are far too sharp, and look video-ish.  Luckily, we can reduce this in post.
This thread is me trying to work out:
What the range of optimal resolution / sharpnesses are actually out there (from serious professionals, not moronic camera YouTubers or internet forum pedants) What might be a good point to aim for How I might treat iPhone / GX85 / other cheap shitty video-looking footage so it looks the least video it can be These techniques will likely apply to all semi-decent consumer cameras, and should be able to be adjusted to taste.
I'm still at the beginning of this journey, and am still working out how to even tackle it, but I thought I'd start with some examples of what we're talking about.
Reference stills from the Atlas Lens Co demos from their official YT channel, shot on Komodo and uploaded 6 months ago:
(You have to click on these images to expand them, otherwise you're just looking at the forum compression...)


Reference stills from the Cooke SP3 demos from the official Cooke YT channel, uploaded 11 days ago:


I've deliberately chosen frames that have fine detail (especially fly-away hair lit with a significant contrast to what is behind it), in perfect focus, with zero motion blur.  I think this is the most revealing as it tends to be the thing that is right at the limits of the optical system.
So, what are we seeing here?
We're seeing things in focus, with reasonable fine detail.  It doesn't look SHARP, it doesn't look BLURRED, it doesn't look VINTAGE, it doesn't overly look MODERN (to me at least) and doesn't look UNNATURAL.  It looks nice, and it definitely looks high quality and makes me want to own the camera/lens combo (!) but it basically looks neutral.
But, that's not always the case.  This is also from the same Cooke SP3 promo video:

The fine detail is gone, despite there being lots of it in the scene.  Is this the lens?  Is this the post-pipeline?  We don't know, but it's a desirable enough image for Cooke (one of the premier cinema lens manufacturers in the world) to put it in their 2.5 minute demo reel on their official main page.  It also has a bit more feel than the previous images.
Contrast that with these SOOC shots from my iPhone 12 Mini:

I mean....  seriously!  
(If you're not basically dry-wrenching then you haven't opened the image up to view it full-screen.. the compressed in-line images are very tastefully smoothed over by the compression)
More:



and my X3000 action camera also has this problem:

Those with long memories will recall I've been down this road before, but I feel like I have gained enough knowledge to be able to have a decent stab at it this time.  We'll see anyway.
Follow along if you're open to the idea that more isn't better...

Say goodbye to filmic pro and their money grabbing subscription

I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't a very good camera, I think people just feel like the system is moving away from what it's potential is/could be.
It's a radically different time than 2017 and the years before spent developing a the GH5. You could overlook the larger size, compared to previous M43 bodies, because it was so much more advanced than anything else out there. 4K 60, 10-bit, IBIS, etc. were all groundbreaking features for the mirrorless market. 
Now though, releasing a camera that is the size of a full frame camera but with a smaller sensor and features that are not significantly better than what is already out there is a harder sell.
Like I said in a previous post, Panasonic probably has the marketing information to back up their decision making, and I absolutely understand that in many ways they are in a no win situation, but I just don't think they are able to compete when it comes to specs, at least not in a significant way. But size and affordability? Those are two things they absolutely could embrace and win some people over. An updated GH5 in a small, compact body at a very competitive price is a more compelling option for a lot of us vs. something like this. But again, it just might not be a feasible thing for them to do.

What excites me is them moving to the L-mount and also what their future plans could be. I could definitely see myself picking up a Blackmagic camera for my non-event work now that it's using the L-mount. Their price of entry is low enough as it is that I could easily justify it since I'd be able to use all my lenses I've gotten since switching completely to the L-mount.

Agreed. Aside from just being ugly, it's just not a very practical design for a video centric camera. My guess though is that's how they save money on development and manufacturing costs.

Full frame sensor, too!

They did it. They went with the L-mount. Nice! Still ugly as sin though haha.

Whatever it is, it'll be incredibly ugly, unwieldy, and have terrible battery life. 
Can't wait! 

I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't a very good camera, I think people just feel like the system is moving away from what it's potential is/could be.
It's a radically different time than 2017 and the years before spent developing a the GH5. You could overlook the larger size, compared to previous M43 bodies, because it was so much more advanced than anything else out there. 4K 60, 10-bit, IBIS, etc. were all groundbreaking features for the mirrorless market. 
Now though, releasing a camera that is the size of a full frame camera but with a smaller sensor and features that are not significantly better than what is already out there is a harder sell.
Like I said in a previous post, Panasonic probably has the marketing information to back up their decision making, and I absolutely understand that in many ways they are in a no win situation, but I just don't think they are able to compete when it comes to specs, at least not in a significant way. But size and affordability? Those are two things they absolutely could embrace and win some people over. An updated GH5 in a small, compact body at a very competitive price is a more compelling option for a lot of us vs. something like this. But again, it just might not be a feasible thing for them to do.

Whatever it is, it'll be incredibly ugly, unwieldy, and have terrible battery life. 
Can't wait! 

Whatever it is, it'll be incredibly ugly, unwieldy, and have terrible battery life. 
Can't wait! 

What excites me is them moving to the L-mount and also what their future plans could be. I could definitely see myself picking up a Blackmagic camera for my non-event work now that it's using the L-mount. Their price of entry is low enough as it is that I could easily justify it since I'd be able to use all my lenses I've gotten since switching completely to the L-mount.

The reworked Micro Studio Camera then... looks with the new additions that they've accidentally created the box P4K that everyone has been asking for.
A nod to Panasonic there that its possible to bring out a new MFT camera that isn't the size of a brick.
However......
Unless I missed it, does that new 6K not have the ND filters ?
It wasn't mentioned and looking at the rear panel the +/- buttons to control it that the P6K Pro has were not there.
The AF looks like the familiar standard too though and I'm guessing much would have been made if it had something new in that department *
Full frame, L mount and CDAF.....
Its pretty much a BRAW shooting version of the original S5 without the IBIS then 😉
Looks pretty good but not the complete revolution many were predicting/expecting/hoping for. 
 
*yes, yes real cinema cameras have no AF anyway etc but don't say that you wouldn't love it if it had it..
 

Agreed. Aside from just being ugly, it's just not a very practical design for a video centric camera. My guess though is that's how they save money on development and manufacturing costs.

I'm not sure who's more excited about this really.
You for receiving your new camera or the rest of this forum that a new member started a thread asking for camera buying advice and then didn't disappear never to be heard from again.
Well done on both fronts !

As you can see here with this Sony rep and his Zeiss CZ.2 lens, shaving those precious millimetres off the camera has revolutionised the way he shoots.
And that is before you even get to the main raison d'être of a 1.4kg weight saving vs VENICE 2.
That 1.4kg is crucial and a game changer when you have 35kg of tripod head, rails, cages, matte box, monitors, EVF and lens attached.
He must really feel the difference in his back all day long.

Here is one of our most adventurous and creative shooters, Nino.
As you can see the size of the BURRITO is once again a total game changer here as it allows the lovely new Cooke to move back a few cm making it necessary to break your wrist to reach it.
The added advantage here is that your hand forms a lens hood, reducing that nasty flare from the single coating!
And as we can see, the ENG style rig high up on the body definitely isn't unbalanced with a high centre of gravity from all the shit mounted on the top handle!

Finally we have the more minimal rig here.
The 2.8kg BURRITO clearly needs the 68 rods under it and a tripod head the size of a bus. Otherwise the whole thing would collapse, giving an unprofessional aura to the shoot.
I think that is an absolute brick of a battery on the back which is all part of the absolute game changing form factor as a cinema camera.
Have you EVER seen a rig like this before!?
REVOLUTIONARY!!!
Yours for only $25,000!
*Or just get a Sony a1 with same sensor from cash converters

I think, when it comes to M43, Panasonic is stuck trying to win over a segment of the market that simply will never buy a M43 camera. YouTubers have moved on to full frame to film themselves on a tripod in their "studio" aka basement, garage, or spare bedroom. Even if M43 leaned into the strengths of the system those folks will never buy in. 
Obviously they have more data than all of us, so maybe focusing on niche users just isn't viable. But it's hard to imagine that trying to win over folks that have moved on to larger sensors because they're "better" is a recipe for success. 
I loved the GH5. It was a game changer for me. But it was released during a very different time. You could overlook the increase in size because it had best in class features that no other mirrorless camera had. Everyone caught up though.
I don't think there will ever come a time when I'll be all in on M43 again. But I absolutely would be open to dipping my toe back into the system if they released a compelling camera that could be a good b or c cam, or even an a cam when I'm trying to not draw attention. But it needs to offer something that others don't. For me, that's a feature rich (within reason), stable, and small camera. 

That 20mm Lumix pancake was a gem. It isn't all about size of course, but about differentiating your toolset from the others. There's a market for all sorts if it makes sense. Shoehorning a M43 mount onto an S5 II speaks of a lack of ideas or clear differentiation.
A competitor like Panasonic on 4-5% market share vs Canon at 45% needs those unique selling points. They can't just copy Canon and Sony.
It all goes to show that Panasonic have completely lost sight of what made Micro Four Thirds special.
It's one thing for the S5 II to be full frame with large lenses, and a body that isn't nearly as compact as the full frame cameras I've pictured above alongside!
It can get away with it because insanely good value for money is on offer, and you're getting the largest possible sensor for the money and best image quality. Lacking in the charm department though.
Let's take a look back through memory lane to when Panasonic was one of the most creative and differentiated manufacturers vs the boring samey DSLRs.

This thing was a true one off, a thing of beauty and speaks volumes about Japanese design culture.
It does not kowtoe to the Americans in the slightest bit.
Once LUMIX in the US realised their customers just want to turn up in front of a client with the most "PRO" and biggest intimidating piece of kit imaginable (think RED), all that went out the window.
You have to partially blame the customer.
People do not value the more interesting designs in significant enough numbers, at least not in the same volume as they value BIG PRO DICK SWINGING COMPETITIONS
I could think of a GAZILLION designs of camera that GH6 sensor would be more at home in and more interesting in.
At least Fujifilm continue to stick to their guns and bring out systems that make sense.
Hell, they even have a medium format PANCAKE!
I absolutely love the design of the GFX 100 II and that thing is tiny compared to what medium format used to be or a large format cinema camera.
If you're going to go DSLR size then it has to either be all out like the GFX 100 II or a Sony a1, or good value for money with sensible compromises.
What I don't get with Panasonic though is a sense of culture in their products any more. The S5 body was never that well designed in the first place or satisfying to pick up. It felt like the team behind the G100 got a promotion.

That thing is basically a Canon G5X knock off in the design and ergonomics department.
It has no soul.
You only see the abyss when you look at it. The capitulation of Micro Four Thirds as a system.
When I look at the S5 II and G9 II I see a well meaning intention and to deliver to a certain price.
It is by no means a bad deal, but what happened culturally at Panasonic to go from a GH1 or LC1 to a fucking G100!?

It's a necessary evil, as it's required to make the camera competitive in the specs race that people seem to care more about, but we really are continuing to get further and further away from the promise of M43.
The lenses, or at least most of them, are still smaller but it's a real bummer that we can't get smaller cameras even if it's at the expense of higher resolutions than 4K. Perhaps it'd be too niche, but a GH5 with updated colors and PDAF in the body of a GX85 at a competitive price would make me consider getting a M43 body again. The GX85 with the 35-100 f2.8 is still one of my favorite combinations due to how low profile it is. I genuinely miss that set up and more than once have found myself regretting selling it.