Davide DB

Yes, a robbery indeed. it could have been a simple FW update.
I'm using several GP11 for scientific diving and an improved (real) battery duration would be nice. 10-15% doesn't worth it.

It seems really only minor updates with the only stand out improvement the Max Mod 2.0 that let you use shoot in 4k.....

Considering how long it takes to design electronics products, the GH8 is probably also in "very early stages" of development.  
But, as they say, talk is cheap!  Until it's in your hands it's not real..

I know of some VFX folks that use these in bulk to capture high-res plates for compositing, so they're at least known and in-use in professional circles.
I don't know of examples where it was used as the main camera, but that's the thing about people that actually make content - mostly they're not online talking about the brand of paper-clips they use 🙂 

From petapixel it more like 10-15% better

In the meantime, somewhere in Japan...
https://www.43rumors.com/ft3-new-gh6-successor-with-phase-detection-af-is-in-the-works-and-will-be-named-gh7-and-not-gh6ii/
 

In the meantime, somewhere in Japan...
https://www.43rumors.com/ft3-new-gh6-successor-with-phase-detection-af-is-in-the-works-and-will-be-named-gh7-and-not-gh6ii/
 

This film is a 20th Century Studios > Disney production so Sony competitor. CGI is by ILM, Industrial Light & Magic, same owner.

This came out in April 2023 so after The Creator had finished shooting.
Also you can already do the desqueeze on the Atomos.
There is no 4:3 or 3:2 mode on the FX3, and using a 2x anamorphic on DCI 17:9 or 16:9 doesn't give you the correct aspect ratio for IMAX.
So did they crop the sides off, I wonder.
The other thing which doesn't stack up is that the FX3 shoots 23.976p, and not true 24p until that April firmware update. Another thing which makes it unsuited to IMAX or cinema.
So maybe they had 'special' units from Sony which did all this and more, way before any firmware update.
I bet Timecode was a struggle as well.

https://petapixel.com/2023/04/12/sony-fx3-and-fx30-get-anamorphic-de-squeeze-dci-4k-at-24fps-more/
 

This film is a 20th Century Studios > Disney production so Sony competitor. CGI is by ILM, Industrial Light & Magic, same owner.

Live from Tokyo
She even wanted it in hipster brown with the retro case to match.
The man who served me in MapCamera knows me from all my previous visits of excess and was expecting me to ask for a Z9 so was a bit weirded out !
 

Ah, I just realised I mis-read your comment in my above reply as "the quality that the manufacturers keep in the drawer (through limiting their potential with too heavy-handed image processing and compression)".
You are right, of course, especially considering that the main reason people keep them in a drawer is because of their limited technical specifications, when realistically people have just gotten used to the latest technologies.  Most cameras we keep on shelves or in drawers are better than 16mm film, and that was what was used to shoot all but the highest budget TV shows and was used on a number of serious feature films too, like Black Swan (2010), Clerks (1994), El Mariachi (1992), The Hurt Locker (2008), Moonrise Kingdom (2012), The Wrestler (2008), etc etc..
I think the biggest problem is that people don't know how to colour grade, or don't know what is possible.  I mean, anyone with a Blackmagic camera that shoots RAW has enough image quality to make a feature.
Hell, if the movie Tangerine could be a success when shot on the iPhone 5S, then no-one has any excuses for not being able to write a movie that is within the creative limitations of their equipment.  Even a shitty webcam could be used to shoot a found-footage horror movie set in the days of analog camcorders!

I just saw the film in a good theater. Not Imax but latest technology. 
I believe that, before continuing to puzzle over the whys and wherefores, one should see it 🙂
Long story short:
There is so much CGI that having Atlas Mercury and P+S Technik lenses AND a good DOP, the film could have been shot with a GH2 🙂
No Spoiler
The plot is not bad and the movie is not bad. IMHO if you like sci-fi, it deserves to be seen if only for not being yet another Marvel crap or third-hand Star Wars junk.
The script occasionally swerves but I can live with that.
There are scenes without CGI, of course but the cinematography is nothing much.
IMHO the real beauty are the CGI scenes and the worlds imagined by the designers. Some of the landscapes are really striking. The futuristic Nepalese Buddhist temples are outstanding. I haven't seen such fascinating landscapes since the second Blade Runner. They reminded me of some of the gems among the DUST channel shorts. By comparison, the sets of the various Star Wars spinoff series are South American soap operas.
Bottom line: perhaps we underestimate the quality that the cameras we keep in the drawer (in the right hands) can express.

I just saw the film in a good theater. Not Imax but latest technology. 
I believe that, before continuing to puzzle over the whys and wherefores, one should see it 🙂
Long story short:
There is so much CGI that having Atlas Mercury and P+S Technik lenses AND a good DOP, the film could have been shot with a GH2 🙂
No Spoiler
The plot is not bad and the movie is not bad. IMHO if you like sci-fi, it deserves to be seen if only for not being yet another Marvel crap or third-hand Star Wars junk.
The script occasionally swerves but I can live with that.
There are scenes without CGI, of course but the cinematography is nothing much.
IMHO the real beauty are the CGI scenes and the worlds imagined by the designers. Some of the landscapes are really striking. The futuristic Nepalese Buddhist temples are outstanding. I haven't seen such fascinating landscapes since the second Blade Runner. They reminded me of some of the gems among the DUST channel shorts. By comparison, the sets of the various Star Wars spinoff series are South American soap operas.
Bottom line: perhaps we underestimate the quality that the cameras we keep in the drawer (in the right hands) can express.

Venice II has a similar sensor but apparently not the same, as it lacks phase-detect AF pixels, and has less rolling shutter than the a1. It might be a very similar sensor just without PDAF and clocked higher for a faster readout.

FYI - Nexto was acquired by TVLogic and this is their new backup storage product: https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/09/28/clouzen-tainer-all-in-one-portable-backup-storage-review/

Sorry I meant Venice II
 
From: https://www.xdcam-user.com/2021/11/sony-launches-venice-ii/
 
 

As is the entire YT channel of WanderingDP, a real life working pro breaking down commercials.  Not only does he break down the composition and lighting, and also shooting logistics like when you'd schedule different shots at different times of day, but also advice on how to be more efficient on set etc, plus he's hugely sarcastic and his videos are often hilarious...
https://www.youtube.com/@wanderingdp/videos
 

No, Venice is 6K.
They have apparently used the A1 sensor in the BURRITO.

Reading this thread about the opportunity to have native BRAW recording on Z-Cam, confirm that is OS on post production only:
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=171209
Anyway, They could make a deal like the one rumored between Canon and Red: you don't f**k with your Raw and I let you use my mount....

what about Venice sensors? do you have any info on those?

I don't think anyone is questioning the future of Panasonic though ?
It is where they are at and/or heading within this specific format that is under discussion as they are in rude health within the FF market.
Again, the camera (which as I've said umpteen times looks very good) and the form/format are very different things.
The idea of a compact system that offers the "optimal balance of high image quality, compactness and lightweight in cameras with interchangeable lenses" to quote the actual MFT organisation itself is surely challenged when it becomes the same size as a full frame system from the same manufacturer.
We need to examine the word 'dead' in the context of what it actually means to a camera system.
It isn't 'dead' as in the absolute discontinuation of all MFT products.
Which means it isn't yet 'dead' in terms of the stated ethos of it as a format by the MFT organisation as, if nothing else, BMD have just released a camera that actually fits within those aims. We also don't know whether Panasonic might also have a camera up their sleeves (or in their pocket) that will more closely align with that ethos.
I'd say that a more appropriate word, as it currently stands, would more likely be 'moribund'.
In a hippier time, it might be described as the 'scene' being 'dead' (man).
Indicating that what it was is not currently what it is.
But what it is might well work for many people so thats all fine too.
I was using it to provide some light relief to this thread 🙂
And to show my own innate hypocrisy and how you can't really rely on the meanderings of a random old fella on the internet.
 
I emphatically agree with both of you that the notion of all MFT cameras having to be small is both a nonsense and ludicrous.
Which is why I haven't actually stated that.
Equally, the notion that all MFT cameras having to be the same size as a FF camera is also both a nonsense and ludicrous.
There is room for both.
Its just that Panasonic haven't released one for three years which was the ill fated (but actually not without its merits) G100.

With the 12-32m kit lens it was around £600 before it was discontinued and it really did fit with the ethos of MFT as we originally understood it and how the MFT organisation still describe it.
It showed that when motivated by hatred (Sony's dominance of the vlogging market) that Panasonic could still do it despite the intervening four years prior to that (the G80 launch) they had been making ever bigger bodies.
Time marches on, of course, and things change so if the price that has to be paid now (physically and literally) to move the story along from the G80 (which unlike the G100 had IBIS) in terms of video spec then so be it.
Of course, Panasonic are not the only MFT player in town so maybe Olympus will offer that alternative.
Yes, the extra reach of the 100-400 on MFT would need the Sigma 150-600 to equal on FF L mount which results in a significant size disadvantage.
This is an example where it makes sense both as a format in general anyway but also as a camera itself, if the price to pay for that performance has to be that form factor.
Thus far, it appears that it must because there is no alternative with that spec.
Maybe I will pre-order one after all 😂

I would take the industrial design team and lock them in a room with:
- A Hassemblad 907X 50C kit
- An Insta360 One RS kit
- An old Zenza Bronica with grip.
Essentially I would want a camera consisting of:
A squared brain with buttons, inputs and outputs, and a minimal display (like a ZCam or the front one of a GoPro) that would allow me to configure the machine.
A high-resolution 3.5 inches display module to attach to the rear that can rotate as we are used to on a GH5. I am not talking about an external monitor but a module that adheres to the butt of the brain and forms a complete body capable of controlling and configuring it like an integrated display. The whole thing a parallelepiped like an FX3.
A Hassemblad-style handle/grip complete with controls and wheels to add to the brain and get the ergonomics of a current camera.
Throw in an adapter with ND.
Put the pieces together and you have a complete camera suitable for photo and video.
If you just use the brain you have a komodo/zcam/BS1H style stuff that you can configure as a cinema rig.
add display and handle and you get a complete camera.
Hassemblad 907X 5C has everything (but the touch display is built-in)
P.S.
Choose which piece costs 2K 🙂
 

 

 
 

I agree and I think this idea is nonsense.
I use m43, Panasonic/Sony FF, and yet I preorderer the G9II.
So why the hell I bought this "big" and "expensive" m43 camera ?
There are a few reasons :
- Neither my A7IV or S5II can give me the fantastic stabilization of the G9II with "relatively small" telephoto and super telephoto lenses.
- Neither of these FF cameras have an acceptable rolling shutter or 60fps Open Gate/120fps 4K. Yes, the A7SIII has good rolling shutter and it has 4K 120fps, but there are always trade-off (much more expensive, low MP, no crop mode,worse details in 4K 120fps).
- While they are a lot of really excellent lenses of the FE mount and a few on the L mount, m43 has a lot of jewels as well. 
I can't see me stopping using some of my Panasonic Leica or my Oly Pro lenses. Some are irremplacable like the 100-400mm PL, some are outstanding to the point that even comparable FF lenses are no match, like the two f1.7 Panasonic zooms (contrast and colors are wonderful). 
I also tried to replace my 12-32mm, 12-35mm and 35-100mm with some FF lenses on my S5II and my A7IV, I can't. There are some options for Sony to replace the 12-35mm but they are not compelling for me (weight, price or features associated with the camera).
- This is subjective but I love the colors from the GH6 and I expect the colors from the G9II to be almost the same. I don't like the colors of the S5II as much, even less the colors of the A7IV.
So at the end of the day, there is no perfect camera and system, but they have strengths and weaknesses.
No, we can't get the low light performance of the S5II on the G9II. No, we can't get the FF look at some focal lenghts (like the 50mm GM f1.2) with our m43 cameras and lenses. 
But as pointed out above, m43 gives a lot of advantage as well. And if we should use m43 only with small cameras, we could not get everything this system can offer with the G9II.