Leaderboard

I shot a doc series for our local PBS station with a couple of these guys. Worked like a charm. The exact reason M43 is a good format for me is embodied in this sort of gear: low-profile with impressive IQ.

All video spec leaked in full: https://winfuture.de/news,126006.html 20MP 4/3" 24mm f/2.8 main camera 12MP 1/2" 160mm f/4.4 telephoto camera 5280x3956 stills resolution 5120x2880 up to 50P 4K up to 120P 1080 up to 200P 4K up to 30P on telephoto camera HEVC codec bitrate up to 200Mbps ProRes HQ support on the Cine model on main camera

Fascinating read: https://landingfield.wordpress.com/2021/09/03/sony-a7s-iii-has-a-2x2-pixel-binning-imx510-bsi-sensor/

5DS/R is still a studio workhorse. Few FF cameras still surpass its 50.6 MP resolution including R5. And with the lowpass filter cancelation its sharpness is another asset for certain types of photography. Like a lot of filmmakers, my passion started out with photography at a young age. My first SLR was a Nikon and it got me infatuated with FF lenses. Fast-forward to the Canon 5D series which was my gateway into FF digital. I actually still own and use my OG 5D mk1. It has this look I attribute to early digital sensors I can't get from newer Canons. Same thing with Nikon which I actually went back to right around D700/D750. D700 also has a special mojo sensor imo. Same with Leica and why I'm sticking to the pre-CMOS (CCD) M9. And then obviously there is film, which has made a huge comeback (well some will argue it never left). So yeah basically I agree, not only do I think still bodies plateau'd a long time ago, there are instances where older tech gives out a nicer image, subjectively speaking. Kind of like how in cinema the OG ARRI Alexa still gets praised even though the sensor and resolution are archaic by current tech standards. Let's not even get started with vintage lenses! That said this is all coming from a sort of irrational nostalgic pov where mojo trumps DR, Resolution, AF etc. For video/cine its indeed a different story. codecs, resolution, AF, exposure aids, media storage etc have been constantly evolving in the last ten years. Things like eye-track AF can be life savers in solo run & gun situations. Having such a reliable AF means I can focus on other things (no pun intended) during a shoot.

I have a Red One MX and it produces a beautiful image, perhaps my favorite image from any digital sensor. But it's size, weight, and power consumption have relegated it to my camera cabinet for anything but narrative work.

The GX85 continues to be a great. I had it for over 2 years and I took videos and photos that I'll cherish forever. I only sold it because I mistakenly thought something Sony and FF would do better and they were from a technical point of view, but it was much bulkier and not as fun to shoot with. I've taken a tonne of shots with the 14mm f/2.5 too- loved that combo for over a year and a half. In 2019, when I decided I'd never leave M43 again, I've been looking for that lens. Sometimes, you can find it for about 100 Euros. Can't wait to see the results you get with the combo!

Just bought a GX85. It's purpose is to serve double-duty, as an inoffensive little camera that I can stealthily take anywhere, and as a 2nd / backup cam for travels. Travel is one of my great pleasures, and if COVID has taught me anything, it's that I need to get better at travel near home. This has resulted in my Go Shoot project, which essentially involves trying to have small, low-zero cost adventures close to home, and to film them as little videos to try things and make memories. The key thing for this kind of thing is having a small unassuming camera that doesn't attract attention. I've been using my GF3, due to its tiny size, but its lack of tilting screen or stabilisation are rather inconvenient and it 17Mbps 1080p is a little lacklustre to say the least. These projects are about story first and image second, and are finished on a 1080p timeline. This means that if I take the 100Mbps 4K image and crop 2x then it becomes a 1080p at 25Mbps image, which is still acceptable (and still better than the GF3!) so that means that the GX85 and 14mm f2.5 combo would be tiny, but with the 2.2x crop factor in 4K and cropping in post, would be 31-62mm equivalent, and the f2.5 combined with the downscaling in post should mean it'd have reasonable low-light ability too. GX85 with 14mm f2.5 for a tiny setup: If I want to work quickly and have a more doc-style of shooting, I can pair it with the 12-35/2.8 and get 26-154mm. In extreme low-light (like caves), I can take the Voigtlander 17.5/0.95 and get 39-78mm. If I want to go vintage, I can use the Cosmicar 12.5/1.9 for a 28-56mm range. Lots of cool options available. Once we get back to travel, which is likely to happen later here in Australia than elsewhere in the world it seems, I'll also use it for a 2nd / backup camera to my GH5. I find that often I will be on a balcony or terrace in golden hour (either dawn or dusk) looking at a spectacular view and wanting to record three things simultaneously: Time-lapse of the whole scene as the light changes - super wide-angle and deep DoF This will be my action camera, which by taking 8MP (in 16:9) Jpegs, which are around 3Mb each, gives about 600Mbps when put onto a timeline at 25fps. Not bad! Time-lapse of part of the scene - variable focal length required This will be what the GX85 will do, and can use any of the MFT lenses I have. Video of interesting things happening, probably with a wide-angle lens This is what the GH5 will be being used for. People walking, boats sailing, flags waving, etc etc. The GX85, by being able to share any of the lenses I have for the GH5, also makes a great backup camera in the instance that the GH5 is out of action. Is anyone else using a GX85? or small camera to fly under the radar?

Sony had a far better idea about how to graft an RX100 to an Xperia over eight years ago now. And it used the whole sensor. Typical Sony, give them an inch and they'll take 40% of it off you.

Not ad hominem. I think the challenge was that you did give the impression that your budget was limited, and I was also with @Mark Romero 2 in thinking that taking photographs of students likely meant you were a teacher and therefore on low pay. So the discussion was about what you could get the biggest value from, with the assumption that you'd probably not have enough to get what you needed at first, and it was about getting good basic coverage to get you up and running and then you could improve things down the line when you'd been able to set more money aside. To put it rather bluntly, your whole argument about Sony colours not being minimum standard combined with your lack of colour grading skill or knowledge really just points out that you don't have much experience in making the types of videos you're talking about making. One of the first videos I ever tried to grade was on a Canon 700D and it was a panning shot of my daughters birthday party with my wife carrying the cake about 4 meters from the kitchen to the table as we all sung happy birthday. What I didn't know at the time was the kitchen light and dining table light were different brands of compact fluorescents, and that even with that glorious Canon colour science (to be praised above all else!!!) the shot was unusable. I would have begged to even get Sony colours. I have been teaching myself colour grading in Resolve for about 5 years now, and I've only just recently gotten to the point where I can deal with difficult mixed lighting situations like that and get good results. So when you post saying you want recommendations, say things that indicate you're very budget constrained, indicate you want glorious Canon colours but don't know anything about colour grading in the real world and don't want to learn, and then turn around and insist that the fastest professional zoom lens is your minimum standard, well. I'd challenge that assertion. Someone else pointed out that f2.8 gives a level of background blur and that's a reasonable argument, but it's a nice-to-have with a limited budget, and I was talking about low-light performance in a low-light environment with faster shutter speeds, not about background blur. Maybe as Mark has suggested, if you could share your real budget then we'd be better able to help, although to be honest, the best equipment still makes images that look like crap if the person using them doesn't have the required levels of skill, and shooting in uncontrolled conditions requires more skill than grading Hollywood films.

It doesn't stack up today because the computational photography, quad bayer and high-speed readouts have overcome the shortcomings of smaller sensors. That's pretty much why, when the iPhone 12 Pro and 12 Pro Max came out, nobody could tell the difference in the images! That's despite the 12 Pro Max having a considerably larger sensor. Quad bayer is an important step, makes bigger difference than upping the chip size and pixel size. Currently the best image quality in smartphone land is: Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra Huawei P40 Pro Plus In that order. I have the Xperia 1 II and it's got a decent main sensor in it and natural image processing. It's nothing all that special though and the other camera modules are very middle of the road in that. I can shoot 1/5 at ISO 100 in low light on the Mi 11 Ultra, in RAW, and the shots are pin sharp. The reviews didn't do it justice, they don't know how to do anything but point and shoot. It's got a lot of unexplored options and a Pro mode, and if you turn HDR to manual, most of the time it's better off off. Also for the best JPEG/HEIFs you need to disable RAW. Anyway it is interesting to see where this stuff is going. With the Cinema video modes and such advanced photo features. Still looking to branch off my interest from EOSHD and mirrorless cameras so I should get into enthusiast smartphone camera reviews because the existing guys aren't photographers, they're tech social media influencers and that is a different skill set - marketing and presentation. I don't think they even talk about RAW in the reviews and the phone review sites don't bother testing it either, because again they're not really that knowledgeable about photography. Anybody who is, point me to them and I'll reach out.

OK, to simplify things and to make sure that we aren't just giving you bad advice: What exactly is your budget? Also, do you anticipate a need for things like audio equipment and lighting and backgrounds and green screen and a computer rig that will handle the video? Because if you don't already have such things, they are going to have to come off the budget.

I hope that isn't the impression I gave off. I will not be spending $30k on gear 🙂 And I appreciate this advice I am doing that! I may swap a 24-105 for a 70-200 and a 35mm prime. So I am taking your advice, and others, and making a decision - which was my goal! So thanks! Probably is - but i've never referenced that I am seeking to be a pro or spend money as a "pro" Again, I wrote in my post: "What lenses, combos, etc. would make most sense now versus being able to put off till a later date? Thoughts on EF vs. RF. Thoughts on 3rd party EF/RF vs. Canon?" - How a few of you got to $30k, pro vs. non-pro, etc. baffles me

Screw Sony.

Every single pro sport photographer has a 70-200 2.8 not a 70-200 4 and I can tell pro sport venues have 2 to 4x the lighting of an amateur venue. I do work on this environment every week both pro and amateur. Better to buy a used non IS 70-200 2.8 lens than a modern f4. As I mention BG isolation in equally important. Sports is one of the few area where equipment will trump skills..

It depends on what you're filming, really. You can really see the difference when dealing with fast moving subjects. But if you're filming talking head or interviews there's not a ton of difference. Lighting also plays a part.

Oops. https://www.dpreview.com/news/1641689739/sony-just-packed-a-1-stacked-cmos-sensor-into-the-xperia-pro-i-but-there-s-a-catch

I'm not a fan of the additional crop, but I compared the GX85 and G9, and the G9 is heavier, larger, slower burst rate (not that I care about that), and considerably more expensive. The decision to buy a GX85 over a G9 was not that difficult to make! Seriously though, the image quality is more than enough for my purposes. It will either be filming Go Shoot projects close to home, where IQ is a disadvantage as I will start to take these projects too seriously and throw away shots where I missed focus instead of focusing on content etc. Or it'll be doing time-lapse duties on a 'real' trip where it'll be recording RAW images, or taking video on a real trip or outing only as a very infrequent second angle or backup because the GH5 has met its maker for some reason. I was originally considering a GH3 the the backup camera as it had the same batteries as the GH5 and had an internal time-lapse mode (the GH2 didn't have both of those) and have been looking at high(er) quality Go Shoot cameras for ages, but nothing really hit the mark. I bought a BM Micro Cinema Camera as a reference for colour grading, and tried shooting stealth with it, but the requirement of a monitor and HDMI cable and (borderline) requirement of external audio made it huge and not stealth. I bought the OG BMPCC and found that the screen wasn't bright enough, and, get this - was polarised so the screen was black when viewed through my polarised sunglasses! How ridiculous! Anyway, I found it to be too slow to work with quickly. Then the GX85 came to my attention and I realised I could kill two birds with one stone, and so it was a no-brainer. If Panasonic hated us they'd be called "Canon", and every camera from now until the end of time would have the same spec as the GH3, or would overheat when doing anything the GH4 couldn't do. The temptation of specs is real, but in all my testing I have come to realise that I prefer better colour science, lower compression, and lower resolution images over the alternative. To borrow a phrase heard elsewhere: if I didn't like the first 2 million pixels you gave me, why would I be happy that there are 14 million more? I'd actually prefer if the GX85 had a 200Mbps 1080p ALL-I mode downsampled from the whole sensor, rather than 4K, but it seems that the manufacturers steadfastly refuse to implement the higher bitrates from the higher resolutions at the lower resolutions. People fail to understand that image quality doesn't exist in a vacuum. For example, here's what filming a picnic in public looks like with a small camera: and here's what that scene looks like when filmed with a larger cinema camera: If people judge camera quality and "professionalism" by the size of the camera, then yeah, the pocket would be the perfect camera for stealth shooting! and apart from the fixed lens, it's a pretty darn good offering!

Kinda sucks that Sony branded the phone as PRO-I(maging) and then compromised on the camera bump thickness to crop the properly big sensor. With a price like that it should be a no-compromise imaging monster. Interesting though, that the sensor is capable of 4K120p and GSMArena claims it is the same one as in the RX series.

Well it is quite disappointing, only using 60% of the actual sensor size so it is actually 1/1.31" equivalent, and more pricy than A7C doesnt help.

Well with that context, for nonprofessional standard of sports photography, then I'm sure the Panasonic S1H or S5 is overkill, and is more than good enough for your needs. You don't have your next mortgage payment riding on the fact if you can snap that next front page image before anybody else does. Heck, if had to shoot a friend's sports event tomorrow for free/fun (not that any of that is happening right now... in lockdowns) then I'd grab my Nikon D90 with the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G lens that I've got. (or perhaps my Panasonic GH4 with the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6) And I'd be happy! And my hypothetical "friend" would be stoked with the images too. People sh*t all over the Panasonic S series AF performance, but I'd be surprised if it is worse than either of those two cameras that I mentioned. People forget how in the photography world that their DSLRs have become "good enough" for many years now for the majority of casual amateur photographers. (heck, even smartphones are "good enough" for many. That's why the P&S genre of cameras are almost extinct) This "plateau" of "good enough" for photos got hit many years earlier for DSLRs than it did for videos with HDSLRs/mirrorless. (I'd say that happened only just very recently, when internal 4K 10bit became mainstream in mirrorless) That's why I'll make the controversial statement (for a gear geek forum! As we pixel peep too much, and argue over small 5% differences in performance) "for the majority of casual snappers a Nikon D90 with good glass is going to be good enough image quality". (and if you splurge a little more for say a Nikon D700, that only costs a couple of hundred extra bucks on eBay, then you've got a camera that's got "good enough" image quality for not just the majority of casual snappers but I'd say 90%+ of them!) Just browse for instance the pics from a Nikon D700 on 500px: https://500px.com/gear/cameras/nikon/d700/ Now, are there reasons other than the photos why an average casual photo snapper might want something other than a D90/D700? Such as better video, WiFi, lighter, modern UI, etc etc etc Yes! Of course. But I don't think photography image quality or even stills AF should be ranked in the top three concerns for most casual snappers. Look at the broader picture of what else you want/need. (such as price / weight / compactness / lens selection / ergonomics / UI / etc ) I linked before to a few videos Tin House Studio did about gear selection, and he uses a Canon 5DR! Do I think that's a great camera body??? Oh hell no!! The Nikon D850 / Sony a7Rmk4 / Nikon Z7mk2 / Panasonic S1R all are objectively bodies with more features, better design, and better image quality. But even though he is a professional photographer, and thus has far far higher standards of image quality than any of us in this thread, the Canon 5DR makes more sense for him, because the image quality easily exceeds "good enough" 95%+ of the time (and those few rare times it doesn't he can just hire in a Hasselblad or whatever) and all those other factors are important to him such as: lens selection (FE / L / Z mount for instance don't have any of the lenses he needs for his work), ease of transitioning over (almost zero downtime for him in moving over from a 5Dmk3 to a 5DR, and "time = money"), and slots into his existing ecosystem (everything he has already for his half a dozen 5D bodies he already has can be interchangeably used with his 5DR as well).

Panasonic won't be releasing a full frame camera for a while, I believe. I mean, they announced the development of the GH6 AT THE SAME TIME they released the GH5 II, so I don't think they would hold back on announcing development of a new S1 / S5 camera.

Charlotte Bellis (a kiwi journalist in Kabul right now) posted today on Instagram about how she got an Osmo Pocket: She likes how discreet it is. (an understandable benefit when you're in Kabul....) Nikon broke my heart with the Nikon DL18-50, by teasing it, but then never releasing it 😞

If Panasonic didn't hate us then instead of producing the incremental LX100ii and GX9 they would've merged the two into one camera. And broke whatever weird collusion manufacturers had going on with not putting microphone inputs on compact cameras.

Panasonic broke my heart with the LX100ii. I would've bought one immediately if they'd given it a worthy update and got rid of the recording limit. So instead I got a used GX85 to be a c-cam/travel/stealth cam! I love it.

Shoot indoors in small sets, with tonnes of crew (bionic mobile heaters is what people are!), and heaps of lights (some are heaters first, and light emitters as an after thought!) then it will quickly get very hot in there indeed during even a normal summer. But thank goodness LEDs are on their way in, and space heater style lights are on their way out.

Still, i just won an auction for a tasty bmmcc with a oplf/ir-cut filter, cage, npf battery adapter and hdmi support. Guess it will be raw camera porn, which means me lookin at this beauty rather than having the camera look at @webrunner5 The people from slashcam already tested prores via filmic app. It still has all the sharpening and processing, a bit more resolution due to using a hair more of the sensor. So the same image like the ifon12.

The problem with USB audio for widespread use is it's limited to short cables. There are workarounds, but it gets complicated once you get to 5+ meters. XLR cables can easily be 10x that length. So XLR is better unless you know that the DAC is always going to be right next to the recorder. As far as non-USB digital audio goes, it would be interesting if we saw some uptake of RJ45 ethernet ports on cameras along with the necessary standards to carry video and/or audio. Those have (flimsy) locking connectors and longer run distance, plus there's a POE standard in place. But as of right now, the only universal standard for digital audio in the consumer world is USB. AES would help pro audio, but would be useless for most consumers still. @mkabiI think we're heading in the direction of putting the DAC (digitizer) in the mic housing like you are suggesting. Certainly the consumer world is. The Sennheiser XS Lav Mobile and the Rode VideoMic NTG are examples, and then there are a couple bodypacks like the Zoom F2 or Deity BP-TRX that are moving there for the wireless world. I think putting the DAC in the mic is especially beneficial for consumer products, because it means that the audio company is solely responsible for the audio signal chain. However, for the foreseeable future, if there is a wire between the mic and recorder, then analog via XLR to a DAC inside the recorder has no downsides compared to digitizing on the other end. If we're talking wireless it's a different story--it would be better to both digitize and record on the TX side, but that's a legal minefield. Also, the reason lavs get away with thin cables and 3.5mm jacks is because they have short runs. You can run unbalanced audio from your shirt to your belt, not 50m across a stage.