newfoundmass

We all, myself included, were hounding Lumix about the GH6. Their silence was deafening at the time. Eventually what they released was a pretty decent camera, but one that also simultaneously left many of us underwhelmed. Then a few months later the G9 II comes out with PDAF. It was terribly confusing for users and, in many ways, self-sabotaged their own flagship camera.
Was the GH6 rushed out to be a stop gap because the community was pressuring them so much? I don't know, but it kind of looks like that with hindsight. It would also kind of explain why they were content with not fixing some of the ghosting issues that people had, which was not a typical response from a company that has very much been attentive to users and known for improving their cameras even years after their release.
If that was what happened it could've been avoided with more communication. Laying out a road map would've saved them from releasing a camera that would be overshadowed almost immediately and made almost irrelevant within a year. People just wanted to know what the future held, whether they should stick with Lumix or look towards a different system. 
The other companies don't have to convince people that they will be around for the long haul. Lumix does. Lumix also needs to increase their market share. The way to do that is to collaborate with users (and, I hate to admit it, try to win over the influencers) and be more transparent. That includes telling people that follow ups to the S1 lineup is in the pipeline instead of just absolute silence.

I agree. They have a real opportunity here to listen to the makers and continue to give us the specs we’re after. LUMIX has always given us so many features for the price and supported cinema features early on. Even maybe forcing some of the other brands to offer things they wouldn’t have. If they doubled down on that and started being more transparent they could foster a real creative community around their products that would spread to consumers at large. The Sony products are sterile and efficient tools but overpriced and lacking a lot. There’s no reason why LUMIX couldn’t have put out an FX3 and FX30 and dominated like the days of the DVX100. But it’s all about marketing and a plan and  creating more around the brand. They are so close…

I think Lumix is damned if they do, damned if they don't. I think we only have to look back to the GH6 to see why they may be holding back. Just months after releasing it they then released the G9 II with PDAF. Within a year they'd go on to release a GH7 with PDAF. With hindsight it feels as though the GH6 was rushed out.
I think Panasonic might be in a similar situation with their higher end offerings.
I hope that Lumix works towards improving their marketing and becoming more transparent with the photo/video community. When you're that far behind the other companies there really isn't a reason not to be. Even if you cannot be specific, letting it be known that you're not abandoning higher end users would probably help. 

I think Lumix is damned if they do, damned if they don't. I think we only have to look back to the GH6 to see why they may be holding back. Just months after releasing it they then released the G9 II with PDAF. Within a year they'd go on to release a GH7 with PDAF. With hindsight it feels as though the GH6 was rushed out.
I think Panasonic might be in a similar situation with their higher end offerings.
I hope that Lumix works towards improving their marketing and becoming more transparent with the photo/video community. When you're that far behind the other companies there really isn't a reason not to be. Even if you cannot be specific, letting it be known that you're not abandoning higher end users would probably help. 

I think Lumix is damned if they do, damned if they don't. I think we only have to look back to the GH6 to see why they may be holding back. Just months after releasing it they then released the G9 II with PDAF. Within a year they'd go on to release a GH7 with PDAF. With hindsight it feels as though the GH6 was rushed out.
I think Panasonic might be in a similar situation with their higher end offerings.
I hope that Lumix works towards improving their marketing and becoming more transparent with the photo/video community. When you're that far behind the other companies there really isn't a reason not to be. Even if you cannot be specific, letting it be known that you're not abandoning higher end users would probably help. 

I think Lumix is damned if they do, damned if they don't. I think we only have to look back to the GH6 to see why they may be holding back. Just months after releasing it they then released the G9 II with PDAF. Within a year they'd go on to release a GH7 with PDAF. With hindsight it feels as though the GH6 was rushed out.
I think Panasonic might be in a similar situation with their higher end offerings.
I hope that Lumix works towards improving their marketing and becoming more transparent with the photo/video community. When you're that far behind the other companies there really isn't a reason not to be. Even if you cannot be specific, letting it be known that you're not abandoning higher end users would probably help. 

I think Lumix is damned if they do, damned if they don't. I think we only have to look back to the GH6 to see why they may be holding back. Just months after releasing it they then released the G9 II with PDAF. Within a year they'd go on to release a GH7 with PDAF. With hindsight it feels as though the GH6 was rushed out.
I think Panasonic might be in a similar situation with their higher end offerings.
I hope that Lumix works towards improving their marketing and becoming more transparent with the photo/video community. When you're that far behind the other companies there really isn't a reason not to be. Even if you cannot be specific, letting it be known that you're not abandoning higher end users would probably help. 

I think Lumix is damned if they do, damned if they don't. I think we only have to look back to the GH6 to see why they may be holding back. Just months after releasing it they then released the G9 II with PDAF. Within a year they'd go on to release a GH7 with PDAF. With hindsight it feels as though the GH6 was rushed out.
I think Panasonic might be in a similar situation with their higher end offerings.
I hope that Lumix works towards improving their marketing and becoming more transparent with the photo/video community. When you're that far behind the other companies there really isn't a reason not to be. Even if you cannot be specific, letting it be known that you're not abandoning higher end users would probably help. 

I think Lumix is damned if they do, damned if they don't. I think we only have to look back to the GH6 to see why they may be holding back. Just months after releasing it they then released the G9 II with PDAF. Within a year they'd go on to release a GH7 with PDAF. With hindsight it feels as though the GH6 was rushed out.
I think Panasonic might be in a similar situation with their higher end offerings.
I hope that Lumix works towards improving their marketing and becoming more transparent with the photo/video community. When you're that far behind the other companies there really isn't a reason not to be. Even if you cannot be specific, letting it be known that you're not abandoning higher end users would probably help. 

If only there was a member of this forum who uses L Mount for video and Sony for stills who has been praying for a ‘one & done’ constant aperture f2.8 lens ranging from 28 to about 100mm whilst weighing max 1kg.
If only there was a member of this forum this lens was designed for…

Delivering in 4K isn't very important to me but there's no real reason not to shoot in 4K even if you are delivering in 1080p.
That's not to say that you can't get great results with a good 1080p image (the og Pocket gave me my favorite image out of every camera I've ever owned) and can even deliver in 4K with most people not even noticing (i know people who do it with their C100s), but there really isn't an argument for 1080p actually being better than 4K. People that say that are just being contrarians.
 
 

Delivering in 4K isn't very important to me but there's no real reason not to shoot in 4K even if you are delivering in 1080p.
That's not to say that you can't get great results with a good 1080p image (the og Pocket gave me my favorite image out of every camera I've ever owned) and can even deliver in 4K with most people not even noticing (i know people who do it with their C100s), but there really isn't an argument for 1080p actually being better than 4K. People that say that are just being contrarians.
 
 

I feel like there's a huge difference between fans that are part of the camera's body (where it gets hottest) and fans that are attached externally to a camera's body. I'm not saying that it won't help, just that it seems inefficient compared to putting active cooling right into the body itself. Certainly for the price I don't see why they couldn't, as I refuse to believe that the extra parts needed would significantly raise manufacturing costs. Panasonic did it for a camera that is half the cost, afterall.
 

Well I'm guessing that whatever massive feature set these new cameras have that a level meter isn't one of them 

I'll be interested to see how the autofocusing works.
I think Panasonic's 1.8 primes are decently priced, as they are better built than their Canon and Sony counterparts, but I also don't think it'd be a bad idea to release more affordable compact primes that are more competitively priced. A third party manufacturer probably shouldn't be the ones releasing a nifty fifty in the sub $200 range when your competitors have ones.

Thinking a company should, at bare minimum, release products that are reliable isn't internet forum spazzing, haha. "They shouldn't offer that for free" is some bootlicking type behavior, whether it's people excusing Sony, Canon, or whoever. You're not asking for it for free, you're paying a $1000 for a camera!
It really isn't relevant what brand you shoot, it's that you make that excuse for ANY company that is the problem. I really can't believe though that we're in 2024 and people are justifying overheating, particularly for cameras that are targeting video creators! People surely shouldn't have to watch a 20 minute video to watch some dude sitting in his "studio" tell you that the camera overheats.
As much as it bummed me to have a recording limit, at least with my original S5s I knew how long I could record and bought the camera knowing that limit directly from the manufacturer. That recording limit also at least told me how much video I could reliably record in 60fps, too. I also didn't experience overheating with it even in 98 degree weather under direct sunlight, imagine that!
Again, those hosting companies are clear about it up front. If a camera company can't guarantee reliability past a certain time then recording limits should be imposed so people can reliably judge how long they can record. Transparency and honesty doesn't cost these companies a thing, some just don't care about their customers enough to give it. I can kind of see why, because people are all too happy to make excuses for them.

Brother, no offense but I think you should rename yourself to EatsTooMuchBoot cause this kind of attitude toward any company is ridiculous. The least they owe you is reliability.

Brother, no offense but I think you should rename yourself to EatsTooMuchBoot cause this kind of attitude toward any company is ridiculous. The least they owe you is reliability.

Reliability shouldn't be reserved strictly for professionals.

Is dynamic range important? I don't know, is it for you? Cause that's the only person that can answer this question. 

I don't even think they lack in resolution. There are old cameras with 1080p that still look good to me, among them the original BMPCC, C100, and the GH3 (and hacked GH2). They might not have the higher resolution or the DR of cameras today, but they have pleasing images that hold up. In fact, from a pure image standpoint, the BMPCC was my favorite camera I've ever owned. It's the other quality of life things that made me move on more than the resolution or dynamic range. Other cameras had a "good enough" image, but better battery life, IBIS, auto focus, audio preamps, etc. were all worth the trade off. I could pull out my GH5 with minimal rigging and get 2 hours of record time, amazing IBIS, good enough auto focus, and all the other things that made my job significantly easier.

Like with your GH5 post the other day, almost all cameras made in the last 10 years are capable tools that can produce nice images. It doesn't mean though that you should go out and buy a GH4 in 2024. There are plenty of "quality of life" improvements that have occured since the GH4's release that make it a lot less desirable camera compared to something like the GH5 or S1. We're blessed to be at a point where we could use a 10 year old camera and still get good results if we HAD to, but let's not pretend that the cameras that have come out since aren't significantly better in every way. IBIS alone radically changed the way I film and work.

I don't know that their current business model is sustainable with a constantly shrinking market and being a niche system. So the question is really "how long can OMD stay in business?" It'll really boil down to how long OMD wants to stick around before deciding enough is enough.
Panasonic has seemingly slowed down their decline and possibly even reversed it a little, so their long term future is less in doubt I think. But M43's future is still up in the air and really depends on whether Panasonic decides to keep going with it if it's just not a profitable part of their business. Even if it does stick around I don't know that we'll ever really see the true promise of M43s, which was small cameras and small lenses with powerful features. The lenses are smaller, but the bodies aren't that much smaller than their full frame counterparts. Still I'll always have a soft spot for the M43 system and wish I'd kept a couple lenses.

I don't know that their current business model is sustainable with a constantly shrinking market and being a niche system. So the question is really "how long can OMD stay in business?" It'll really boil down to how long OMD wants to stick around before deciding enough is enough.
Panasonic has seemingly slowed down their decline and possibly even reversed it a little, so their long term future is less in doubt I think. But M43's future is still up in the air and really depends on whether Panasonic decides to keep going with it if it's just not a profitable part of their business. Even if it does stick around I don't know that we'll ever really see the true promise of M43s, which was small cameras and small lenses with powerful features. The lenses are smaller, but the bodies aren't that much smaller than their full frame counterparts. Still I'll always have a soft spot for the M43 system and wish I'd kept a couple lenses.

$500 is a lot of money.
----
I think the hype for this is (as usual) overblown BUT there aren't a ton of options at this price point, making it enticing for a very specific audience. I do feel as though we are moving backwards and heading towards Canon cripple hammer territory taking things like IBIS away (not that Sony IBIS is very good to begin with.)
What I really wish Lumix would take from this release is THE POWER ZOOM. GIVE US SOME, PLZ.