mtol

I will likely go back and forth on whether the S1RII appeals to me but I recently was reminded not to lust after gear. I've got an S1 and S1H currently and I bought an S5 and eventually an S5II hoping to replace these, sensing size and weight were the only real drawbacks of the S1 bodies. I sold both the S5 and S5II almost immediately, for usability reasons (worse viewfinder and screen) and because of the picture being over-sharp on the S5II. I had somehow convinced myself that a newer camera would spark my creativity, as I am currently in a creative rut. This was misguided. The S1 and S1H are still excellent cameras and they produce an image that feels special to me still. They also feel somewhat indestructible compared to the S5 style bodies. I used them primarily to film a major documentary, along with a GH5 and a slew of other cameras over the years including Canon C300 marks I & II, 6D & 5DIII. In color correction, I learned how little the camera matters compared to what you capture, outside of the quality of life improvements and build quality (the C300II actually broke from use at the hot shoe mount). Even some quality of life improvements should be met with apprehension. IBIS has ruined some of my shots with weird motion artifacts - the days of a loupe and hand grip on my 6D netted some pretty stunning motion. Among all the cameras I've shot with, I found the most usable camera overall was the GH5 - and if I was to embark on a similar documentary project today and had budget for a new camera, I'd probably lean towards a GH7 for its versatility and portability. I think the GH7 actually represents the most unique value proposition in Lumix's line - for run and gun documentary, with 32bit audio and a 12-60 or 12-100 lens, I don't think it can be beat. Of course, I don't want to go through the process of re-acquiring all the MFT glass and adapters I've now sold. For me, the S1RII's reduced size and weight, improved high ISO performance, 32bit audio would be significant quality of life upgrades - but the trade-offs of higher heat sensitivity, lower battery, and a huge hole in my wallet would not be worthwhile. I mean, I'll want one, as is the case with every new camera I see, but will it actually improve my work? Not at all.

I was previously feeling a bit cynical about Panasonic, debating trading in my S1 for an S5 but not wanting to give any more money to the company, and I take it back. Looking forward to this next update, though I wonder if there's a real jump in quality from 4k to 5.9k. What's the real use value of that?

I've gotten used to the focus peaking on the S1 but I find it not as good as the GH5. Color options seem more limited and it doesn't feel as precise.

Definitely Black Magic Pocket Cinema 4k, among others. This a really cool device I wasn't aware of. It's more that entire drives are encrypted and function without a major speed loss, and these include slow 5200 rpm drives and portables. It looks like Magic Lantern worked on this a bit, but for .jpg and .cr2 only, and not for video.... https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10279.0

My entire workflow requires me to encrypt files the minute they are out of camera. I think if it happens at the storage device level, the loss of speed is usually quite trivial. There is no practical solution I can imagine that would require a password to be entered for every single photo or video instance - likely just when the camera is powered on. I'm talking about protecting the materials on the card, but no, I don't think (based on experience) destruction of materials is a guarantee. Unfortunately cloud based backups are not really an option when I'm working remotely. This sounds ideal!

In the feature race, there's something that's always missing from the spec sheets of 'professional' cameras and camcorders. Professional journalists and filmmakers urgently need in-camera encryption to protect the materials we record and to be able to work ethically and safely. I'm not alone, as a freelance filmmaker who frequently documents police conduct (and associated protests), in recognizing the real risk to myself and my subjects if police seize my gear. In 2016, a group of 150 filmmakers and reporters wrote to Canon, Olympus, Sony, Fuji, and Olympus (but not Panasonic or Black Magic!), and outlined the urgent need for encryption: https://freedom.press/news/over-150-filmmakers-and-photojournalists-call-major-camera-manufacturers-build-encryption-their-cameras/ They wrote: It's a pitiful reflection of the camera industry that we have 8K Raw cameras within reach, but a $100 cell phone with a password lock and built in encryption is actually more capable of documenting events and keeping materials secure. I would argue that encryption would help with commercial camera applications and in feature filmmaking too, and is just good practice anywhere privacy is concerned. Security camera systems rely on encryption. Every operating system offers a form of hard drive encryption. Why not cameras, if they are truly aimed at photojournalists or other professionals? I know a lot of camera industry representatives read this forum, and ambassadors / reviewers with the eyes and ears of manufacturers. I urge you to take this seriously, and to look at how to implement these features. It would be profitable and it would help sell cameras. It could be implemented via firmware to existing cameras in order to buff up the current spec sheets and help stand out in a crowded marketplace. I know a large number of reporters who are ready to switch systems in order to access in-camera encryption. So why isn't this a thing?