Search the Community

I walked out of testing yesterday completely sold on the Canon R6 Mark III as the reliable hybrid for pro stills and video jobs. Solid AF, dependable IBIS, a proper EVF for tough lighting and that familiar Canon workflow I already know inside out. Seemed like the safe, no surprises choice. Then I spent the afternoon shooting with the Nikon ZR and Canon EOS C50 side by side, and the shift happened faster than I expected. The ZR surprised me with how compact and genuinely portable it feels. Easy to carry all day without fatigue, and the build quality gives that premium, confidence inspiring solidity. The large bright 4" flip-out screen is a real advantage for quick solo framing and monitoring, especially on location shoots where you need to stay discreet and move fast. Handheld footage stays smooth thanks to strong IBIS, colors and dynamic range deliver right away, and the RED integration could bring noticeable client appeal for higher-end branded or narrative pieces. Adapting my existing Sony Batis lenses works seamlessly too, so no immediate lens spend to get productive. The C50 brings serious post-production flexibility with 7K open gate, which is hard to ignore if heavy cropping, vertical deliverables, or aggressive grading are regular parts of the job. It is a proper cinema camera with useful pro connections. Still, the smaller screen and lack of EVF makes composing on the move feel more constrained, and the lack of IBIS means EIS or gyroflow post time. So yesterday I was set on the R6 III. Today I find myself quietly checking ZR deals while weighing whether the everyday portability, big screen usability, and RED workflow edge tip the balance over the open gate capability of the C50 (and the balanced hybrid strengths of the R6 III). Not decided yet. Need a few more real client-style tests to see which one actually streamlines deliverables without adding friction.

You are correct that the economic impact of European countries replacing those services with our own systems would be huge on the US. Also the loss of influence would be significant. But I suspect somehow that Europe doesn't have the self-confidence to actually go through it. They should, though. But Trump's admin is quick to anger and reacts to even small threats to their plans. Starmer threatened to shut down Twitter/X after the latest scandal (of AI generated sexually explicit images of users based on their photos). JD Vance has said that if UK shut down UK residents' access to X then the US will pull out from Nato. This is how much they are intent on bringing a Trump style admin and politics to UK. I think we need to coordinate action with Canada, UK, EU, Japan, Australia and develop alternatives to all this technology and services and eventually sell all financial assets in the US and shut down Meta, Alphabet, X, use a new financial services system which not US based or influenced and simply live in a world free of US influence and coercion now that that country has revealed its true colors. The remaining problem is the majority of military power is now concentrated under undemocratic, autocratic governments which could cause problems if they feel they are losing the economic and social influence over the democratic and free parts of the world.

I don't quite understand what the problem is. Metadata giving instructions for interpreting the exposure (such as a "soft" ISO setting which does not actually affect the stored image data) can work for proprietary formats such as raw video but is there a similar option for non-raw video formats in any camera? If the video is to be used "as is", with minimal editing, all the major editing and playback software would need to know what to do with the data and the instructions that come in the metadata. If the file is meant to be always edited (as in log video) then it may make some sense to offer this as an option but the user always has the option of using just one of the base ISOs in the camera if they so wish, so I'm not sure what added value there is from having a separate brightness adjustment; just to see the image better? The problem is that by doing that you likely become disconnected from how much exposure latitude you have in either direction as the brightness of the image shown is just an adjusted brightness for viewing pleasure and does not reflect the actual exposure or values stored in the file. To compensate for this loss of visual connection between what is shown on the screen and the actual position of the values stored then would require additional exposure monitoring tools, such as colors indicating how many stops you are from saturation at each point of the image, and this then can lead to screen clutter in a small camera with a small screen. The Nikon ZR, as far as I've understood, does offer such an option by choosing R3D recording: the camera lets you choose one of two base ISOs and then adjust the brightness using the ISO sensitivity adjustment which does not affect the stored data. I already see people asking Nikon to add "traffic lights" for monitoring to help deal with the disconnect. Does the ZR waveform display reflect only the actual stored values or is the brightness adjustment or ISO sensitivity also affect the waveform?

Some first impressions of the G9II; finally starting to shoot with it but will have my first very demanding shoot this weekend. I did some filming at a worship conference early this week. Image is thick and grades well. Lowlight is clean up to 3200 ISO and gets very noisy very fast. So far I shot on the super efficient mp4 4k 72mbps. When really pushing ISO at 6400 and 12,800 image seems to soften. This might not happen once I try the all-i codecs that have substantially higher bitrates. One thing I noticed, this camera has hybrid PDAF and Contrast-detect AF. At high ISOs the PDAF seems to turn off or become severely reduced...i start to get autofocus pulsing and it is not as responsive. It is not HORRIBLE and is still likely better than a gh5, but its not the snappy reliable PDAF that this camera normally operates at. I need to do more extensive testing, btu it seems up to around ISO 2500 or 3200 you can expect good AF performance, but seems to worsen from there. I will be shooting a big concert-style christian event this weekened and the venue has lots of contrasty DMX lighting which looks beautiful but is def a lower light scenereo. I am toying with shooting in CineD V2 in lowlight. What seems to happen is when I shoot in a flat 709 PP, I can lower my ISO and get a comparable exposure. I know that LOG needs a higher ISO in lowlight bc its capturing a much wider dynamic range...and once you grade LOG if its exposed well the noise differences vanish. But with CINEd V2 i can lower my ISO probably 1 to 1 1/2 stops and get a good exposure. Im thinking in terms of how the sensor behaves, it would allow me to more frequently keep the ISO at below 3200 which in tern means keeping good autofocus performance since it seems to again worsen above 3200 ISO. I am also thinking that since the picture profile will be more contrasty, if i need to crank my ISO ever the autofocus would be better because it is analyzing a more contrasty image. I think it will still grade well; it is still going to be 10 bit and i suppose the extra V-LOG DR is not terribly necessary in low light. Plus, the codec is still 10 bit so colors should manage well; i would run the footage through the same node tree i used for Nikon Z6 Flat 8 bit, which basically is modified CSTs in/out of Davinci Wide gamut with modifications to artificlaly smooth highlight rolloff.

I have this camera since its release in late 2023. The G9II is lightweight, has better IBIS and video details rendering (in 5,7K/Open Gate only) than the S5II, S1II and S1RII (with non raw modes) and lenses like the small 20mm f1.7 II are really fun to use with this camera. I'm not tempted by the GH7 because the 5,7K/Open Gate mode of the G9II has very nice detail rendering, so I don't need the Prores Raw of the GH7. But to be honest, I think the best image out of the box comes from the GH6, colors are the best I've seen on a Panasonic camera. The GH6 with the 25-50mm is something else, even my S1RII doesn't look as good. For now the cameras I use the most are : The GH6 with the 25-50mm (insane rendering) and the 25mm f1.2 (pretty nice and soft look at f1.2 even if the colors are a bit muted). The G9II with the 20mm f1.7, the PL 12-60mm and 100-400mm. The S1II with the 35mm f1.2 DG II (only in Prores Raw). The S1RII with the 50mm and 24-70mm S Pro. The Z6III with the 50mm f1.2S/35mm f1.2S and sometimes the Batis 135mm f2.8 and 35mm GM (only in N-Raw).

Ok, first 2 week trip behind with the ZR, 35mm F1.4, 50mm F1.2 and 135mm F1.8 Plena and here are some thoughts about the ZR. First the good sides. The ZR screen worked well enough for nailing focus and exposure, even when shooting into shadows in bright daylight, but you may want to max the screen brightness. Zooming into the image with the zoom lever was handier than with Z6iii plus and minus buttons. Even with screen brightness maxed occasionally battery lasted about as well as Z6iii with it’s EVF on normal brightness. Had to use 2nd battery only a few times during 4-5 hour shooting days in cold, 0 to 10C conditions. Brought also the Smallgrip L cage with me, but did not use it, as it makes the ZR body taller than Z6iii and about similar weight. Even with 1kg lenses ZR felt quite comfortable to use and hold, but as a climber my fingers are not the weakest. I missed the Z6iii EVF a bit, but used now also different shooting angles and heights more due to the bigger screen being handier than EVF for that. 32bit float saved the few clipped audios I had pretty well, even though I don’t know if it is true 32bit pipeline from Rode wireless go mic to the ZR. Still, the audio sounded a bit better than what I have gotten with Z6iii and Rode. Exposing clips with R3D NE took at first a bit more time than with NRaw, but by using high zebras set to 245, waveform, and Cinematools false color and Rec.709 clipping LUTs it was quite easy to avoid crushed blacks and clipped highlights. R3D NE has manual WB, so I took always a picture first and set the WB by using the picture as preset. It worked pretty well, but not perfectly every time. Shot also NRaw in between to compare, but used auto A1 WB for it. It seems the auto WB did not always work perfectly either, but it was relatively easy to get R3D NE and NRaw to match WB wise in post. In highlights R3D NE clips earlier than NRaw and it was clearly seen in the zebras and waveform. Still with R3D NE there was not much need to over expose and even with under exposing I needed to use NR only in a couple of clips, where I under exposed too much. On last year’s trip with Z6iii, when it didn’t have the 1.10 FW yet, that improved the shadow noise pattern, I needed to use NR in many clips, until I realised I could raise high zebras from 245 to 255 without clipping. With R3D NE and NRaw 4 camera buttons and one lens button was enough. I had 3D LUT and WB added to My menu and that mapped to a button, so it was quite fast to change display LUTs or WB. WB mapped directly to a button or added in i menu won’t let you set the WB by taken picture as preset. WB se to i menu let’s you measure the white point and set that though. In post I preferred the R3D NE colors over NRaw in almost all of the clips I took, except in few clips where NRaw had more information in the highlights. Changing NRaw to R3D with NEV to R3D hack brought NRaw grading closer to R3D NE, but they were still not exactly the same. NRaw as NRaw seemed to have more blueish image in some of the clips due to the blue oversaturation issue it has, but the NEV to R3D hack fixes that. Then the bad sides. After coming home I picked the Z6iii, looked through it’s EVF, felt all of it’s buttons and thought, this is still the better camera, a proper one. Z6iii has also focus limiter and mech sutter which both I missed during the trip. The worst part became pretty clear after every shooting day. Not the R3D NE file sizes itself, but the lack of software support to be able to save only the trimmed parts of R3D NE clips. Currently Davinci Resolve saves the whole clips without trims, even though NRaw works just fine, and Red Cine x pro gives an error during R3D trim export. If you happen to fill 2TB card a day with R3D NE, you need to save now everything. I saved like 6TB of footage from this trip when it could have been only 600GB. If this does not get fixed I could as well shoot NRaw with Z6iii and get rid of the damn ZR. Changing trimmed NEV files to R3D does not work either, as Resolve does not import the files. ZR is fun to shoot, no doubt about it, but it’s R3D NE workflow is almost unusable at the moment, at least for my use.

Definitely; that's where the 12-35 2.8 and DJi 15mm 1.7 will show their strengths for me. The lenses haven't arrived yet, but the camera came with the 12-60mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens, so definitely in the ball park with size and weight. The thing is so darn light; it actually feels extremely comfortable and balanced attached to the larger body style. I could be fine with a sigma 18-35; funny thing is even that feels somewhat light to me, as I am used to having to carry around my Atomos Ninja V for anything 10 bit. Yes, yes, yes. The only reason I have a great idea now of what matters to me, is because at this point I've shot a lot of projects, and have done so on multiple different camera systems. So along the way, I've learned what matters to me. I'm not going to notice a 1/2 stop DR difference; some grainy footage (as long as the grain isnt ugly) doesn't bother me terrible. Sometimes I like it. But I do value great stabilization, as the way I shoot I end up spending a good chunk of my time finessing post-stablization to achieve the type of camera movement I want while keeping things completely handheld. I have a solid handheld technique down, but on most cameras it is still not perfect. I always hold the camera losely, usually shoot wide, and do a great heel-toe walk or body sway. But I always need to post-stabilize. I end up trying the stabilization options in Davinci Resolve. If that doesn't work, I render that clip out to Prores and import it to After Effects just to apply Adobe Warp Stabilizer, as it is a bit better in my experience. Once I get the result I like, I export. The beauty of the G9II is that when you combine the fantastic IBIS with e-stabilization high, I get quite close to the result I get after all of that post stabilization process...but this is just the footage out of the camera. It saves me a lot of time. And I can even add a drop of warp stabilizer on top to make it perfectly smooth. Another big advantage for me, its effectively doing what Gyroflow does but all internally and paired with the best IBIS ever. I've tried Gyroflow. I've used it on some FX3 footage I shot for my buddy's wedding film company. I've also rigged an iPhone to my Nikon Z6 as well as used the Senseflow A1. Its a nice solution. I figured I'd love it; its the same concept of what normal post-stabilization does (which I always use ALL THE TIME). Big difference is it is using true camera motion data; so the results should be perfect right? Well yes, but you need to shoot on a high shutter speed. And I found that even on the Sony FX3, where Gyroflow can work with IBIS on, the crop was often still fairly large. And the workflow is lengthy. With the G9II, I have a minimal 1.255x crop with e-stab on high, and because its working fully in tandem with the phenominal physical IBIS system, its very stable AND I can zoom the lens mid-shot and it works fine (can't do this with gyroflow on most setups). AND I can keep my shutter at 1/50 because the physical IBIS system is doing 80% of the work here. But yeah. Moral of the story is shooting lots and lots of stuff has made me realize what matters most to me. The G9II seems to really hit that. Again, I used the Nikon Z6 for 4 years. I've also filmed weddings on a Sony FX3 with nice Sony G master glass. I filmed very extensively for one organization with a Canon R5 and EF glass. This past summer I bought a Canon R7, then a Panasonic S9, then sold both. So I've tried enough cameras and shot enough to know what works well for me. I'd fully agree that a lot of what camera youtuber's claim are the big time differences are not always as important as they seem; for me, the wonderful IBIS of the G9II and the minor crop in e-stabilization is way more useful than a full stop of DR improvement when you already had great DR in the first place. Etc etc. This is a concert I filmed and edited this summer on the Panasonic S9. I haven't had a chance to film anything substantial on my G9II...but this is close. It's a super weird setup I sort of wound up with over the summer...The Lumix S9 with the Sigma 18-35...in the Super 35 crop mode WITH E-stab on high. So basically a 2x crop MFT level at that point. But I still found the image to be very nice. More importantly, with some careful walking, I got the images to be this stable and a lot of these shots have NO post-stab applied. Colors were very rich. G9II is even better because again the crop is lessened in E-stab high and the physical IBIS is better. And build quality smokes the S9; that was something I did not appreciate about that camera. A short clip from a concert I filmed, with the aforementioned Lumix S9 setup. Again, no post-stabilization. It is just so smooth. Makes all the difference with how I like to film. More handheld with the Lumix S9 setup. This has a bit less "gimbal-push-in" shots and a bit more regular handheld shots. With e-stabilization high, it has a perfect balance struck, where you can walk and move the camera such that it looks like a steadicam, or you can just handhold it for regular stuff and it looks as stable as a cine-cam weighted down. This wedding trailer was with my old Nikon Z6 setup. Combo of Davinci post-stab and Warp Stabilizer. Outside, I cranked my shutter speed very high to help. I used RSMB to add motion blur in post. While this worked, I had to spend extra time stabilizing in post and tweaking things if it was not perfect. This is all but eliminated now with the G9II. Also, half of this video was shot on a Nikon F-mount 24-85mm 3.5-4.5, entirely at f/4.5. I reckon that looks pretty close to what the Panasonic12-35 2.8 will look like; @kyelet me know if I am wrong since you've used that very lens I think? But anyways, its enough DOF for me. That being said, if you like more, totally get it. Nothing wrong with that. End ramble haha.

I just freaking bought this thing. I so agree with you. The camera is unbelievable for the price. I genuinely will never need anything more than what this camera has. Lowlight was quite impressive. And I'm coming from having shot on the OG Nikon Z6 for nearly 4 years; that camera was very good in low light. Like "lets shoot a wedding reception at 25,600 ISO" level good. And on this G9 II...you can actually use it at 12,800 if you are fine with some somewhat pleasing grain, or just denoise the image in Davinci. Cleans up easy. Colors are VERY thick. Dynamic range is great. IBIS is the best I've ever used. E-stabilization high is amazing and crops less than 1.3x according to my tests. Planning on getting the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 OG and the 25mm 1.7 and pairing those two together for a nice compact kit. I think its the most underrated camera of 2025. A real steal. Also I consider this camera to be a real tempting alternative to an FX30.

After two or three years of editing HDR out of S5, S5II and GH6 footage and then from GH7, Z6III and ZR I wouldn’t say they look the same. Panny’s footage can be tweaked to look almost similar than Z6III, but still it just doesn’t look as good to my eye. The ZR R3D NE also looks a bit different than NRaw, but it is debatable which one’s colors are better. In this same context Iphone 15 Pro Proress footage stands out, and not in a good way, when viewed on a big screen.

I always said how the Nikon colors were close to the Alexa one. I used to work as an on set photographer on movie shooting including Netflix in my country. And many times I had to match them to the Movie own colors that were mostly shots on Alexas. And they were damn close, as this test shows. I did not do video to video comparison, but Nikon colors have always been so good.

Just on this forum, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of comments about this brand or that camera having terrible colors, awful skin tones, colorw impossible to match, and now everything depend on the user? What did I misunderstand about your comments? Here's a simple search for you. https://www.eoshd.com/comments/search/?&q=Colors&type=forums_topic&search_and_or=or

It's the same "Canon makes better skin tones" superstition among photographers while we could get whatever skin tones we wanted with raw files all these years, but this time among videographers. Now convenience is part of the color science tho. If the image is just two clicks away from their perception of pleasing colors, means the camera produces great colors.

Not surprised. I love the video from this camera when I see it online. I love the footage in this simple family video. Shot in "muted" with FilmConvert applied on top. Kit lens. I once filmed a wedding with a GX80, a Sony 1080p pro-level camcorder, a Nikon D90, and a Nikon D3400. It wasn't easy to match to say the least, but I was able to keep the story center-stage, not the crazy colors of each camera.

I had only original S5 before the S5II, but the various 8k and 4k H.264 4:2:2, H.265 4:2:0 and Proress samples from S1RII looked clearly not that over-sharpened during the short period I played with them in Resolve. They were much closer to S5, colors were kind of richer, and in low light shots it looked cleaner and good. I was seriously tempted to switch back, but did not want to get rid of my new Nikon lenses. I was also put off by the various crop modes and over heating. Now, with Z6III, ZR and 4 Nikon lenses it would need S2H with good EVF, 4” screen and H.265 IQ comparable to R3D NE for me to switch back. Proress Raw HQ file sizes are even bigger than what R3D NE has, and raw controls worse in Resolve, so that is not an option for me.

Here in the US the GH5 has actually gone up quite a bit in price! It's about $600 currently on eBay and Facebook marketplace. If you're lucky you can snag it for a little less, but a few years ago it was going for about $500. I always liked the image out of the GH5s more, especially the colors. The GH5 wasn't terribly difficult to get right, just a few tweaks most of the time, but the GH5s right out of camera always looked really nice. We're pretty lucky to be able to still use these 10 year old cameras and still get incredible results.

Nikon is going to add RED profiles to their image recipes. So any of recently released Expeed7 cameras can use that for both still and video. Flexible Picture Controls that you have to use to make these recipes doesn't support LUTs or curves. I wonder how close to RED colors they can go with that limited set of tools.

I wish someone in Nikon or RED explain what they did and what these codes actually do. NRAW show less purple noise at extreme underexposure but colors are all over the place. R3D NE is in a pool of purple noise, but colors are intact.

After shooting with ZR and 135mm F1.8 Plena outside for a few hours in depressing Autumn darkness, and another few inside with 35 1.4 it’s pretty clear the ZR and R3D NE have their perks. ZR feels quite small and nimble with the 35 1.4, and ok with the Plena without extra L grip. I can live without Z6iii EVF, barely. Focusing and exposing via ZR display works ok even from 20m away with the Plena at F1.8 during and after sunset. Exposing via highlights set to 245 work fine, as does the Cinema tools false color LUT. With CT LUT there is no zebras though, only with built in Rec709 LUT. The Red colors are a bit different (better?) than with NRaw and blue is not over saturated with LEDs. In low light R3D NE is clearly better than NRaw. With IPP2 pipeline grading is also a bit faster to get better results, both in SDR and HDR in Resolve. The only big downside is that neither RED Cine X Pro nor Resolve cannot export the trimmed R3D NE clips from the timeline at the moment, probably due to a bug in Red SDK. Resolve just copies the whole clips. Shooting longer periods from sticks is then a no go atm, unless you compress the raw to H.265 and save that, or edit your project straight from the CFExpress card. Copying whole 2TB to SSD is just stupid, if there is only 100-500GB of footage worth saving. Hopefully there is an update to Red SDK and the ZR could need a FW update too for some minor bugs and for H.265, which did look softer than Z6iii H.265.

R63 is looking good here in terms of colors and texture. It is not going to set any records for DR, but it has a nice filmic noise pattern and the DR is perfectly fine for its class. It would be a great camera to carry around town, especially if you are already in the Canon system:

Look, I was on a beach with rough seas and I wanted to do a very simple thing: a focus transition between the sand in the foreground and the breaking waves, all at F2.0 with the ND filter. At that moment, I had the old Lumix 20mm F1.7 mounted, which I really like for its rendering and colors. But it was simply impossible, partly because the focus ring (like many Lumix M43 lenses) is not smooth and absolutely not pleasant, and also because it's impossible to "feel on your wrist" the two focus points and move between them. Damn it, it's not rocket science. It's a trivial thing that anyone can do after five minutes of practice. In the end, swearing, I remounted the vintage Yashica 28mm and voila! I truly don't understand who the hell even had the thought that a "non-proportional" focus (that's the correct term IMHO) could be useful for anything. So, the old 20mm F1.7 pancake is absolutely useless: the firmware doesn't support proportional focus, the motors are of a very old design, and apparently, it's not brilliant for video even with the GH7. Panasonic thinks that everyone who shoots video with the GH7 is willing to spend 3600 Euros for the 10-25mm and the 25-50mm lenses. They are crazy. It seems to be a blanket that is too short. All the technological effort has been concentrated toward continuous AF with A.I. algorithms and specialized sensors, and now that we have almost succeeded, we are no longer able to do what we have done for a century: manual focus. Unbelievable.

Finally got ZR yesterday. After changing all the settings like I have them in Z6iii, except Zebras and Vignette for R3D, got to test it a bit too. 1st, the screen is really good, you can change almost everything needed via the touch id and new menus quite quickly and intuitively. Need to figure out still what I need to set on those 4 custom buttons really. The grip is tiny but feels ok in the hand. Still, with heavier lenses like 1kg 50 f1.2 and 135 f1.8 having the L shaped gage’s bigger grip seems to be a must, as it also has the Arca-swizz base plate for easy tripod use too. Quickly tested R3D NE vs NRaw to R3D hack with ISO 800 and 6400, and R3D NE was a bit cleaner in the shadows and seemed to hold the colors better too. The Z6iii EVF and all of it’s buttons in muscle memory seems still of course more convenient to use, but there is no going back to timy 3.2” screens after this. In various Panas and Z6iii I almost never used the screen. Cinema tools has made a false color LUT, propably have to buy and try that too, if setting the zebras to 245 for R3D highlights does not work like zebras at 255 for NRaw. The build quality seemed robust, but the shutter button needs a bit heavier press. Could not find the focus limiter in the menus either. Hopefully the weather allows to take both ZR and Z6iii outside, and see how the ZR handles, and what the footage looks like.

If it comes from China, why would they care about Patent. Even I think Portkeys are doing a stop base false color system in their new monitor. I think it uses different colors and is customizable. It ill be difficult to patent something like that outside of the US.

Since RED says the colorimetry and gains are different in R3D NE vs. N-RAW, this seems to support that. Nikon traditionally has done a white balance adjustment before storing the values in the RAW file, and the raw conversion software has to know what processing has been applied in order to correct the WB. My guess is that RED might not do that (to preserve consistency across the different cameras storing R3D files) and so the colors are different in the different raw formats. RED also does not adjust sensor gain between intermediate ISO settings, as far as storing values in the raw file is concerned, apart from the two base ISOs, if I understood this correctly, and this approach is also used in the ZR R3D NE. Nikon applies different gains to the data also at intermediate ISO values when storing data in N-RAW files. So, the two formats work somewhat differently and are intended for different postprocessing pipelines.

The difference is noticeable even by looking at the image Thats funny to be honest Even colors are different I think Davinci is responsible for all this.

I'm still on the other side of this one. My most used lens while traveling on my GFX 100 II (and previously on my GFX 100) is the 32-64/4. Except when Etosha NP, where it was the 500/5.6 (sometimes with the teleconverter). Most used apertures on the 32-64/4 are all in the f/5.6-11 range. There aren't a lot of landscapes where I need to be at f/2.8 or faster and for environmental photos of myself or my partner (or both of us together) in places, the phone does fine - and if I do take it with the real camera, shooting at f/2 will definitely let somebody know that we were in a place with certain abstract impressionist colors seeming like a meadow or forest or lake behind us. For an upcoming trip to Thailand where I'd like to travel lighter since we're moving around a lot, sleeping on trains, etc, I'm currently giving a lot of thought to just bringing the 50/3.5 and trying single lens life. I'm eager for the day when the GFX 100RF is a lot less expensive on the used market.