Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
thebrothersthre3

M43 not dead Panasonic S1

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, kye said:

The GH6 could be $1 and have 8K 16-bit RAW with integrated drone and I wouldn't feel bad about my GH5 at all.  My only stress now is buying lenses - there are so many and I want to have all of them!

Friendly advice - but hardly it doesn't already in your mind: stay with Voigtlanders of choice, because you'll always come back to them after excursion in the realm of vintage lenses (Voigts have best  combination of vintage/clear-modern traits). Than, slowly spare money for Fujinon MK zoom (or best Leica R zoom with speedbooster 28-90 - zeiss contax 28-85 as cheap alternative): firstly, it is much better to make dreaming for perfection  longer,  and secondly, your kind of commitment simply deserves and logically aims just for the best (still inside of the boundaries of achievable). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
On 1/15/2019 at 1:06 PM, mercer said:

Well that’s what’s crazy about this idiotic hobby of mine. For instance, I was looking at some Red Scarlet-X videos earlier today and drooling. But some of them are 6-7 years old and by today’s standards look outdated.

You can pick up a RED SCARLET MX for a song these days. A brain is like what four or three thousand bucks??

However I reckon that the likes of say a Panasonic GH5S / BMPCC4K would be a more capable camera

On 1/15/2019 at 2:14 PM, mercer said:

And yes, that’s why I said a major manufacturer to exclude BM from the equation because no matter how you look at it, it will take one model from Canon, Sony or Panasonic, even at a slightly higher price, to take the spotlight away from BM. The security of having a camera that has good battery life and an IR Cut Filter built into the stack with better ergonomics and AF and IBIS, or whatever, will go along way.

Yeah I agree. The GH5 should have been priced at $1500 and the GH5s should have been $2000. Of course, I think Donal Trump once said... why charge $200 for an airplane ticket if the consumer will pay $500. Since the GH5 was a good seller, the price point may have been right. However, I don’t think they saw what was going to come out after and for the price that it did. Obviously, the P4K at $1299 is a big hit at Panasonic and the GH series because they are both aiming hard for the video market. But I think the real surprise was the X-T3. That was unprecedented with what was offered and why it is probably the camera of the year imo. 

That is why on the grey market , "refurbished" cameras , and on sale the GH5 has dropped to US$1.5K ish (and the GH5S has seen a similar relative price drop as well )

On 1/15/2019 at 3:52 PM, kye said:


I suspect that one aspect people often get attached to is that it doesn't look as real as modern cameras.  I've noticed that modern cameras and modern TVs look more real somehow, and to my eyes that hasn't been a good thing.  Watching TV soaps on the odd occasion I visit someone and the TV is on I am struck by how much it looks like normal people in a room rather than TV stars in a fictional world.  When previously you might have watched a show you're not familiar with for five minutes and come away with questions about the story or characters, now I'm left with impressions about how makeup needs to improve and the whole thing looks like a home video despite being shot professionally.  

I suspect another factor is how badly set up modern TVs are by default. 

Every time I go over to one of the chick's I'm seeing to watch Netflix with her, I'm struck by just how awful her brand new TV looks! And I feel compelled to tweak with her settings...  which she kinda hates and often turns it back to the defaults after I leave 🤣😂

19 hours ago, kye said:

Personally, I think it's a great time to go to full-manual FF lenses with adapters, that way you're not trapped in a system.

Is one of the reasons why from the start most of my lens investments has been in Nikon F mount 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I suspect another factor is how badly set up modern TVs are by default. 

Every time I go over to one of the chick's I'm seeing to watch Netflix with her, I'm struck by just how awful her brand new TV looks! And I feel compelled to tweak with her settings...  which she kinda hates and often turns it back to the defaults after I leave 🤣😂

 

My lord, I was watching TV at my friend's house and was horrified at how bad an HD tv looked. Turns out he had sharpening all the way up. I turned it all the way down and he comments how it doesn't look sharp anymore. I can't fathom how anyone could think that image looked good before I corrected the sharpening lol. Plus he that no motion blur setting turned on. 🤢

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, anonim said:

Friendly advice - but hardly it doesn't already in your mind: stay with Voigtlanders of choice, because you'll always come back to them after excursion in the realm of vintage lenses (Voigts have best  combination of vintage/clear-modern traits). Than, slowly spare money for Fujinon MK zoom (or best Leica R zoom with speedbooster 28-90 - zeiss contax 28-85 as cheap alternative): firstly, it is much better to make dreaming for perfection  longer,  and secondly, your kind of commitment simply deserves and logically aims just for the best (still inside of the boundaries of achievable). 

Wow - the Fujinon and Leica are expensive!  Although the Contax looks interesting, I'll have to read more about it.

One thing I don't know is what part of the vintage look I'm interested in.  I suspect I'm interested in the rendering being a bit softer, but I'm not sure if this is just lowering the sharpening in-camera, or if this is something I need to get from the lens.  

I have a Minolta and a Super Takumar on their way so I should be able to compare those to the Helios and Voigtlander and start to get a feel for what I like and don't like about the image.  It is appealing to have a zoom that does 35-109mm equivalent but f3-3.5 is still quite slow, and with primes I have the ETC mode which gives good flexibility without having to change lenses.

14 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I suspect another factor is how badly set up modern TVs are by default. 

Every time I go over to one of the chick's I'm seeing to watch Netflix with her, I'm struck by just how awful her brand new TV looks! And I feel compelled to tweak with her settings...  which she kinda hates and often turns it back to the defaults after I leave 🤣😂

Is one of the reasons why from the start most of my lens investments has been in Nikon F mount 

 

4 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

My lord, I was watching TV at my friend's house and was horrified at how bad an HD tv looked. Turns out he had sharpening all the way up. I turned it all the way down and he comments how it doesn't look sharp anymore. I can't fathom how anyone could think that image looked good before I corrected the sharpening lol. Plus he that no motion blur setting turned on. 🤢

Yes, I suspect the default process-everything settings on TVs is a big issue as well.  The guys at LiftGammaGain are always struggling with these things, because they deliver a grade to their client who then watches it on some random TV and then calls them in the middle of the night to tell them the film looks all f*cked up without realising it's grandmas TV and not the grade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×