MrSMW

Ditto all of the ☝️
Some folks read too many YouTube comments or even opinions from certain channels that are often based on diddly squat.
Never had banding or AF issues with my S5ii. For video, it’s a f**king excellent piece of kit and way above most folks needs or skills.
And for the price, silly value.

Probably…
Back in the day, rangefinders for film photography were the thing.
To some they still are, but perhaps these days in a digital format such as the Leica M8/9/10/11, Q2/3 and the rangefinderesque Fuji X Pro-1/2/3 and X100 line.
In recent years, they have become video capable, often to the same level as their mirrorless ‘SLR’ style siblings, but are they the best tool for the job?
Probably not but will either work in a pinch or can be made to work…
I’ve had a string of the Fuji X cameras from the Pro1 to the Pro2 and all of the X100 cameras except the the V, ie, all of them except their most recent incarnations which are the most video capable.
I personally would not choose any of them for video work regardless of capability because unless rigged out, they don’t work very well ergonomically for video compared with their siblings, ie, I’d take an XH2 over an X100V as a video tool every time.
For stills though, either with a built in pancake or interchangeable compact lens system such as the X Pro line or the Nikon Zf, they are nice to use.
For stills, in my career, the two cameras I have enjoyed the most have been the X Pro1 and X Pro2, the second version fixing the somewhat tardy AF issues of the first version.
I never went to the 3 because though I would have welcomed a tilt screen, the one they went for was not for me.
So the Zf is a return to that style of shooting (stills) for me and with a fixed lens approach as another…and perhaps my favourite ever stills camera, was the original X100.
The 35mm focal length was/is pretty good, but 40 is better still. 12mp back in the day was OK, but 24/25 is far better. And it has excellent AF and all round operating speed including start up from cold. And then there is fantastic class leading IBIS and almost the same level of video capability as my S5ii.
Almost because it doesn’t allow for 6k shooting though technically could.
But would it make a decent or even good video camera?
Actually yes, for my needs at least and this is something I will be exploring in 2024.
In standard format, it’s ergonomically shit for holding out in front of you style video, but the Smallrig grip improves things considerably.
I don’t think it’s the kind of body to be using bigger zooms or longer lenses on, but I will be interested to see how it handles with my (adapted) Tamron 70-180mm when it turns up, but again, more from a stills perspective.
But as a pure video camera? Probably not. For one thing, it doesn’t really offer anything you’d want to shoot externally so whilst you could add a cage, handle, monitor etc, why would you? That would possibly be a case of forcing a tool to work better for you than it otherwise might, but more suited tools exist in the first place.
But compared with the Z6ii, it’s moved the game on in the AF and IBIS department so it sits between it and the Z8. Kind of. At least capability-wise, though not ergonomically.
I’m looking forward to using mine more. I never saw it coming but when it was announced ‘out of the blue’, knew instantly it would be a good fit for me.
There’s quite a bit of hype, both positive and negative, around it right now, but that kind of thing doesn’t influence me, - it either works for me or does not and for me, it’s the 2023/2024 version of the Fuji X100 I always wanted.
Criticisms so far…
Only one and that is I would rather it had a tilt screen than a flip out but understand why they probably went this route, - to try and please 2 markets.
Market 1 being the casual video shooter/content creator and Market 2 being ‘The Photographer’ who can turn and close the screen and use the viewfinder only and never use the video function.
It’s not for everyone, but it is for me.
Which topic is this again? Z8 I think… 🤔😉
Still sitting on my fence over that one…
It depends on if Nikon pop out a Z6iii any time soon and how that 70-180 works on my Smallrig gripped Zf, but otherwise leaning back towards the Z9 for the following reasons in no specific order:
A. It’s arguably more ‘pro’.
B. It’s undeniably ergonomically better and a better larger lens platform.
C. Better cooling.
D. Longer battery life.
E. Twin CF Express card slots.
The negative is it costs more than the Z8, is heavier and less discrete, but these compromises do not outweigh the sum total of A-E for me.

Ditto all of the ☝️
Some folks read too many YouTube comments or even opinions from certain channels that are often based on diddly squat.
Never had banding or AF issues with my S5ii. For video, it’s a f**king excellent piece of kit and way above most folks needs or skills.
And for the price, silly value.

1. This is a problem. I imagine they’ll fix it as it wasn’t a problem on the S5 (the S5 would stick to one individual but it’d be sheer luck if they were in focus).
2. Never seen banding but I don’t pixel peep.
3. It works quite well. Not quite as good as Sony or Canon from what I’ve seen

Concise summary of so much rumor regardless of brand when it comes to rumors.
I still look occasionally myself though… 🤪

I just know that at some point, maybe next year, maybe the year after, I am going to get some hipster stood next to granny with her iPad, shooting one of these things…

Sounds too good to be true. That would otherwise be ridiculous value...but it doesn't ring true just based on price.
IBIS has more axis of stabilisation than lens OIS, but yes, you don't need lens stab if you have it in the body...though if both have it and they play nicely together, better still.
Stabilisation is a whole topic on it's own though as in what do you want it to be?
Locked off almost tripod like? Fuji is good at this.
Wave it around like a gimbal? Olympus or latest Nikon very good.
But back on price, you could get an OG S5 within the budget, but not a S5ii with a lens.

I just know that at some point, maybe next year, maybe the year after, I am going to get some hipster stood next to granny with her iPad, shooting one of these things…

I looked at doing this partly because I liked the idea of this tiny micro camera but also just because ☝️

I looked at doing this partly because I liked the idea of this tiny micro camera but also just because ☝️

A VERY strong contender for me and could have been an outright winner for me, except for one thing, and that is I am taking the MarkusPix 'one and done' approach and including a lens.
There isn't a single lens in the L Mount line up that swings it for me. If I had to pick just one, it would be the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 to pair it with, but then at 24mp, too short for my needs.
But purely as a camera body, for stills and video, I'd choose it over anything and everything else.

Better this than being the old lady front and centre capturing everything with her iPad.

Better this than being the old lady front and centre capturing everything with her iPad.

Better this than being the old lady front and centre capturing everything with her iPad.

I think I'm floating dangerously in the middle between those two groups, straddling both worlds. 

Sounds like every wedding I have been to for the last 4-5 years…which has been circa 100+ (would have been more if it wasn’t for covid).
EXACTLY, including that 60+ gent fumbling with his archaic DSLR and that Fuji hipster couple 😂

How long is your piece of string? 😜
70mm (everything in FF terms) is a bit short for me in terms of a 'portrait' focal length other than perhaps indoors when space may be tight, otherwise outdoors I prefer anything from the trad 85 (though been using a 90 recently as my 'short' telephoto) through to 150mm.
I didn't say I had a 35-150 though, just that it is my 'ideal focal range' for pretty much anything and everything outdoors.
Pretty much bang on focal range for me for portraits outdoors, specifically couples at weddings, whether full length at a distance, or closer up. I like compression and will always pick a longer lens and work further away than a wider lens and work closer, if that option exists.
For portraits, not a fan, - too far from the subject to communicate properly or too tight if I can. 
I am indeed in the process of moving from 70-200mm f4 over to 70-180mm f2.8 and from Lumix to Nikon/Tamron in this regard because on the lens side, it's a 1 stop faster, more shallow depth of field in a sharper, smaller (not much) and lighter (again, not by much) unit and as I have no real need for anything over 150mm other than very occasionally, the 70-180 works better for me.
A weightless 28-200mm f2.8 would be glued on providing it did not extend when zooming like an excited donkey. I prefer non-extending zoom lenses, but they are quite rare. The Lumix 70-200 f4 is so beats the Tamron 70-180 in that regard, but the Tamron extended zoom length is not too obnoxious and the other benefits outweigh this small negative.
But back to your weightless zoom otherwise, I can't see how I'd really use it any differently to having a 35-150 or a 70-180 or a 70-200, ie, my time above 150mm is limited. I would prefer NOT to have such a massive range in a single lens, because I prefer primes.
I'm at heart a prime shooter for whom zooms make more sense so rarely shoot at anything but the extreme ends.
The set up I am working towards with stills is; 20-40 but to me, it's 20 or 40, - there is nothing in between. It's simply 2 primes in one lens. I NEVER shoot anything between. Same as the 16-24 it replaced, it was always 16 or 24, end of.
My 40mm f2 is my 'everything candid' lens because for me it is the perfect focal length. It's welded on to my Zf and is essentially a fixed lens point and shoot other than in an extreme emergency when I could stick on any compatible lens.
My third and final lens is the 70-180, so it's a 70 and a 180. I could shoot it at anything in between and without wishing to sound like a complete moron, simple won't and it's a 70 (indoors) and a 70 or 180 outdoors.
So my focal length set up = 20, 40, 70, 180 and these 4 focal lengths cover all my bases.
I wouldn't cry if the 180 was 150, - I could live with that, but 180 has it's uses so is my '150' if that makes sense because that is the extreme end of that particular lens and I don't adhere to using zooms as twin lens primes to be in any way pedantic, never mind an arse, but because it's how I work and see things.
A 28-300 would have zero use to me. Yes if I went on a safari I might want something longer and if I could only take one body and one lens, I might rent something. And if I shot sports, I'd buy something, but we're talking what I would personally do or use and think, not necessarily what anyone else might.
This is why I really like Canon's 28-70 f2 and 24-105 f2.8 lenses because one is the perfect indoor lens for me (size & weight aside, but if I have to compromise anywhere, this is where I would) and the other a near perfect outdoor option...except 35-150 as in the Tamron would be better as a focal range, but I don't much care for the extending zoom and variable aperture.
If someone was to make me that 'best possible real world' zoom, I reckon I could live with a 40-120mm f2.8 with some kind of hard stop mechanism that meant it cld be used as a 40/80/120. Take my money.
I'd need something wider (such as my 20-40) but would trade the lack of that longer end for more megapixels and a bit of cropping.
Personally, I like compression. Obviously the longer the focal length, the more potential there is for compression depending on all the usual caveats etc, but IMO, it's not too extreme 100-200, whereas with using say wide angle lenses for portraits, is just to wacky and unnatural to my eye. In fact portraits with anything wider than 28mm is not to my taste unless it's full length.
Above 150, as above, for me, beginning to lose some contact/direction with the subject.
Conclusion.
As with all these things, opinions will vary, there is no right or wrong, only what works for you, for me or for someone else, which is often not the same thing. In fact whatever I do is rarely what anyone else, never mind the mainstream is doing. For me that is partly deliberate but mainly, 'just because'. They don't make boxes in my shape.
 
 
 

I think mine and many others, is the dream ‘do it all’ lens which would have as big a range as possible and the widest constant aperture possible, but without being too big or heavy.
The closest to that ideal right now for me would be:
FF = Canon 28-70 f2 and 28-105 f2.8 plus Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8
APSC = Fuji 16-55 f2.8 and 50-140 f2.8
M4/3 = Lumix 10-25 f1.7 and 25-50 f1.7
Focal ranges are quite personal/dependant on individual needs but for me these are:
Indoor, 20-70 and outdoor 35-150.
Funnily enough, lenses with those specific focal lengths exist! For Sony and Nikon users at least…
My preferred candid focal length is 40mm. It’s just a sweet spot to me that isn’t quite as wide as 35 and not as tight as 50 can sometimes be.
But specifically for M4/3, I would struggle to see past that Lumix f1.7 pairing despite their relavent weight to the format. On a G9ii, easy choice for me. On a GX85, maybe not.
When it comes to M4/3 glass, I have always preferred the Olympus offerings. Their f1.2 ‘pro’ primes especially.
As a one lens to do it all though, I’d struggle to see past the 12-40mm f2.8, the most recent version.
Had that on the OM-1 that I had for a short time and other than say shooting sports or going on safari, for which a longer lens would be required, the FF equivalent of 24-80mm with a constant aperture of f2.8 is great for landscapes and people.
It’s the one lens that along with Fujis 16-55 (24-83 equivalent) has FF beat IMO, because the ‘traditional’ 24-70mm f2.8 is just a bit short at the long end. Unless you have a lot of megapixels and can crop, but that is another story…and personally I like to see in frame the end result without cropping.
That OM-1 paired with the 12-40mm f2.8 and the 75mm f1.7, for me would be the ultimate travel camera combo.
I could make an argument for myself for any sized sensor set up and happily shoot with any of them from M4/3 to medium format.
For my work though, I am uncomfortable (for want of a better term) with anything other than FF.
 

Standard M1 and the massive jump in processing was between the desktop and the M2.
I didn’t see much difference between the desktop and M1 for most things.
Possibly also differences in software being more streamlined?
I don’t know and am not really interested in techy things as in ‘how’, but rather just that it does. And my M2 does!

Standard M1 and the massive jump in processing was between the desktop and the M2.
I didn’t see much difference between the desktop and M1 for most things.
Possibly also differences in software being more streamlined?
I don’t know and am not really interested in techy things as in ‘how’, but rather just that it does. And my M2 does!

Sounds like every wedding I have been to for the last 4-5 years…which has been circa 100+ (would have been more if it wasn’t for covid).
EXACTLY, including that 60+ gent fumbling with his archaic DSLR and that Fuji hipster couple 😂

5k? It's not even 6, never mind 8k 😜

GH7 or S1 replacement for sure.
I hope it’s the latter because it’s far more interesting. To me anyway 😉

5k? It's not even 6, never mind 8k 😜

I ‘traded’ (off-loaded to the wife) my M1 14” at the beginning of this year for an M2 Max with 64GB ram 16” because the old one was barely faster than my 7 year old gaming desktop PC.
A good test was batch editing a typical wedding of say 700 raw files through DXO PureRaw tidying up noise and detail.
Overnight on my PC, around 8-10 hours?
Same thing failed every time I tried it on the M1 chip MacBook.
With this year’s M2, 40 minutes maybe?
It has transformed my workflow and as someone who spends a lot of time working away from home Apr-Sep, it’s been brilliant.
I use it with 3 external SSD.
One for photo, one for video, one (armoured) backup for both.
My only wishes were it was slightly less laggy for video editing because yup, there is some (but that may be me not having it set up right?) and I wish the screen was bigger than 16”, but as an all in one, photo and editing machine, at home at the dining room table, or in the office or in the motorhome, it’s a great/essential tool for sure.