Leaderboard

Refurbished items often come with warrantees of their own making them a bit safer than just straight up used copies. I definitely recommend buying used or refurbished from any of those retailers in addition to Adorama. I've had great experiences with all of them. The used prices are often a little higher than you'd pay buying direct from another person, but you get the security of solid return policies and reputations.

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.

Hmmm... they might have something on their website. I would look in to their professional service plans. It MIGHT be overkill for you, but if you are dropping some serious $$$'s on equipment, you might feel better about having a service plan. But I am just saying this based on MY experience with Panasonic, and how if I had realized there was only about a $200 difference between a new S5 and the used one I got, and that there was the service plan for new bodies (and the free lens), I would have gone with new.

That can be useful but they always make some clangers you need to watch out for... - Usually they don't bother testing the actual focal length of the zoom optics. For example some test shots at 4x when the periscope optics doesn't get used until 5x. I've seen entire reviews from them which ignore a whole camera module. - They don't even bother changing the default settings and picture profiles. So if a result looks like an oversharpened HDR mess, that's why. The Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra has controls for dialling down sharpness, contrast and saturation. The HDR mode is usually best turned off too. - They seem allergic to testing RAW. It's like if DPReview only showed you dynamic range in the JPEGs. RAW Is a good way to bypass the over processed look of a smartphone. - They don't really make proper judgements on colour and skin tones, the artistic side - The overall scores are a bit off, some better phones too low down and some new models too high up.

Its the remote editors that are trying to deal with the live output of the cameras at events that I feel sorry for At 120fps there'll be more shit coming down those pipes than the ones the UK water companies are currently putting into the sea.

Ah crap - I was taking about the GX9. Stupid typo! I'm half-way through reading the Cine-D GX85 thread. Funny how every time someone finds a hack there's someone who turns around and asks for 12K120 12-bit internal, like somehow once the genie is out of the bottle you can ask for whatever you want 🙂 I worked this out last night. Long story short, it's about edges. The world has infinite resolution, and therefore edges are 100% sharp. Everything in the real world, ie, physical processes, will only make edges softer. Film has limited grain size and thus blurs the edge slightly, lenses are imperfect and have blur, etc. If you shoot RAW you will get edges that are slightly blurred because of de-bayering and limited resolution (no camera is infinite resolution). If you get a nice compression algorithm and give it enough bandwidth you will also get edges that are slightly blurred. All good so far. Where it all goes wrong is when you have compression that makes the edges more sharp than reality. ie, the pixels on the darker side of the edge are darker than the object itself, and the pixels on the edge of the lighter side are lighter than the object itself. This NEVER happens in the physical world. It never happens with film, it never happens shooting RAW, it is a completely artificial process. This is why some footage looks "organic" (ie, of the physical world) and some looks "digital" (ie, not of the physical world). Note the "halos" around this image I found on the web: You either like footage to look natural, or you want it to be hyper-real. It's a matter of taste.

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?

Press Text Translated via Google: As Panasonic Japan had launched a special 20th anniversary website: http://panasonic.jp/dc/20th_anniversary/column.html

I buy them with mixed of used/new, normally buying new if there is no used yet and price is not crazy. I save quite a lot on buying used though, and can usally resell with minimum depreciation.

When it comes to cameras, it depends. My main camera I always buy new. People often tell me it's a waste of money but I always buy the extended warranty... It gives me peace of mind. I will entertain refurbished and open box deals as long as they come with a warranty. Every other camera though? I buy used with a focus on older cameras. My B-cam and C-cams are both used and were bought for under $400 each after I sold the lenses they came with. The G85 was about $350 and the GX85 was $250ish after doing that, and both are in excellent condition. Assuming I stay with Panasonic, the GH5 that I bought new will slide into the B-cam slot for whatever I buy new, assuming they are easy to match for by multicamera work. I don't see much value in buying newish cameras used unless I'm getting a good deal and know the seller, for the reasons @Mark Romero 2kind of gave. For the $200 extra I'd rather have gotten the ability to get the warranty and all the benefits you get from buying something new. That's just my preference though. Lenses though? I've bought one new lens in my life. I tend to stick to established sellers and people I know, but if I see a real bargain I'll take the chance. I've been very fortunate in that it has worked out well for me every time. I don't care at all about getting the new model of a lens unless there's a significant difference; gimme your old lenses as long as they work! 🙂 Well used/loved gear is a great way to build up your arsenal. I highly recommend it!

I've used these – they work. The tolerances seem good, too, infinity focus is maintained and the focus scale is accurate, which is rare imo with adapters. But the rear elements will be far enough back that you don't want to mount the lenses on anything with a mirror. Also the focus ring placement is annoying with these lenses. 😕 Lastly, I believe these are only compatible with Arri S mount lenses that have a helical. Cookes, for instance, do not, and rotate within the mount. Which is why a simple screw on PL mount converter doesn't work with Cooke Speed Panchros and you need something more like the Visual Products or Les Bosher adapters. Rafcamera sells one, too. But for PL mount only and not EF. But if your lenses have helical focusing (some Schneider, Zeiss, most zooms, etc. I think) I think you're good with the adapters at the link above.

I basically bought all of my camera and lenses used, with the exception of my first dslr (a Canon 550D) and the Pocket 4K I placed a Preorder for, right after it was announced. I don´t need all my gear to look brand new or to be the latest and greatest. For example, I just got a Sony a7rii as an alternative to my 5Diii. I bought the 5Diii for 580€ and the a7rii for 700€ via ebay/a photography forum. But refurbished could be a great option as well. Depends on what you´re looking for and how big your budget is.

DuckDuckGo translates... << The GH6 currently under development aims to achieve both mobility unique to micro Four Threes machines and a variety of video expression capabilities. Newly developed with sensors and engines, it supports 4:2:2 10-bit Cinema4K60p video recording, and plans to achieve unlimited video recording time within the recommended operating temperature. It is a pity that I can not tell you in detail, but please look forward to what kind of camera the GH6 that engineers are still developing with all their heart and soul. >> Glad to read that Panasonic is keeping us in the loop regarding delays, very much looking forward to putting the pandemic's impact on global manufacturing in the rear-view mirror at some point and getting to see what this camera eventually will be! :)

EF 85 1.8 I had that it is ok but too short for most sports, I sold it as it was mostly collecting dust. If you find a really cheap used ok but if not stay away as there is a new RF 85 2.0 so the EF 85 1.8 value is tanking... 200 $ max If it would be me: EF 70-200 IS II used (1000 usd), Adapter EF-R (100 usd), RF 24-105 4-7.1 used (220 usd) When you have some more money left add RF 35 1.8 used (350 usd) or RF 50 1.8 used (180 usd) by looking at the focal length that you will use the most out of your experience with the RF 24-105 4-7.1...... If you did not buy yet the R6 I believe is sold in kit with the RF 24-105 4-7.1 (this is why there are so many used one on the market selling out of the kit, I got mine for 190 usd)

When I say “if I wasn’t a pro”, I really do mean me personally as in everything & anything I do that is not paid, I never use my ‘work cameras’ but instead, much prefer to use smaller & lighter stuff. Sony ZV1 is my current ‘personal’ camera and even that doesn’t get much use next to the iPhone 8 and that is far from cutting edge these days. I think next year I am going to trade both and combine for the first time properly, phone, stills, video, all in one single unit. But as above, this is not me ‘advising’ anyone else, just stating personal use/opinion and that’s not going to be for everyone for sure 🙂

It has a thing called Leitz Looks which Leica have tuned to give authentic simulations from cameras like the Monochrom. The auto focus on it is supposed to be pretty shit, so that's authentic too.

DJI Action 2 officially announced. Hands-on review:

My point exactly. Those DXO charts don't give you the full picture. Maybe Schott likes an optical viewfinder, DSLR ergonomics, no AA filter etc? Maybe he doesn't like to use adapted EF lenses on a RF mirrorless (I can tell you first-handed the performance isn't the same). Like I said some people even still shoot film. DXO charts are irrelevant when it comes to subjective preferences! In any case the 5DS at 50.6MP is hardly a camera to shrug at even by 2021 standards. Can't say I agree with this. We were all amateurs/hobbyist before becoming pros (not to mention none of us are pros 24/7). Thank god I didn't limit myself to compact p&s or smartphones. Nothing wrong with hobbyist/amateurs going FF. An R6 or A7IV is mid-tier prosumer gear anyways. Just saying.

Panasonic/L Mount, in my opinion as a pro user is as follows: Stills photography. Zero issues. Very quick. There are others that are quicker but for 99% of people 99% of the time, it’s quick enough. If that is not the case for ‘you’, then there is either a fault with the camera or lens or with you. General video; tracking people moving side to side, near zero issues. Tracking AF towards or away from. THIS is where it falls down. Not all the time, but enough of the time to not be able to trust it fully. In order to get the best result, you ideally need a native lens and tweaked AF settings, but even then… However, if I was not a pro, I probably would not go any further than APSC Fuji, Sony or Canon. And possibly even not beyond a high end compact. Or even one of the latest phones…

The sheer irony that literally in the opening seconds that video starts off with bad audio! No wireless on the planet, not even one you spend thousands and thousands of dollars on, is going to be as robustly good as a quality XLR cable for twenty bucks or so. But practically speaking, we can't on a modern film set use hardwired mics. As priority is camera 1st, not sound! 🤣 (imagine if camera dept got told we can't use your internal camera recordings... only what's recorded wirelessly to the 1st AC's monitor remotely!) Thus everything on set is wireless, and why I've got dozens of channels of Lectrosonics. If lockdown hadn't happened, and all the other mess going on, then I was earlier this year very seriously considering investing in a few channels of Shure Axient Digital: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1404861-REG/shure_adx1m_g57_adx1_diversity_showlink_enabled_micro.html https://www.trewaudio.com/product/shure-axient-digital-adx5d/ https://www.gothamsound.com/product/ad3-plug-transmitter But with what the future is looking like now with all that uncertainty, I'm putting off those plans, am glad I did that. Another local mixer friend of mine is in the same boat, he'd even already placed in his order. But cancelled it once they arrived, because we're in lockdown now. A damn pity though, as Shure Axient Digital is the closest you can get to perfect wireless like a hardline XLR cable!

i bought one two months ago because i love the size and ibis but i haven't really tested it out yet. i would love a gx85 style gh5

One of the key things that is in play here, and I haven't heard @SRV1981 really comment on, is having a deep understanding of what is about to happen and being able to be ready for it so that it can be captured. Weddings, as spontaneous and magical as they may look in the photos, are often rigidly planned and highly controlled methodical events where a good wedding photographer will be able to list every angle, every shot, every focal length, and every challenge they will have on a given day after having only done a quick walk-through at each venue So in that case, yeah, a good wedding photographer who has shot 500 weddings could probably anticipate the key moments enough to magically frame with a prime. Weddings are also a relatively malleable event too, where the photographer can direct or otherwise control a lot of the shots. While sports have a certain degree of predictability to them, they have rules after all, there is no malleability or doing it again. Events may or may not be quite so predictable and/or malleable. This is where the skill comes together with experience to take up any shortcomings in flexibility that the equipment offers. Mostly, the better the images are coming out of a piece of equipment, the more of a PITA that equipment is to work with, and the more that it expects you to revolve around it rather than it being flexible with what is happening.

Some posts back I made the comment that people only share the images that look good, or situations that paint them in the best possible light. I got a little bit of that from those two videos. The first video was a guy standing next to a volleyball court on one side of the net and taking shots that are all within the width of a volleyball court. This is great, and if you're only ever going to be shooting full-height or mid-shots of people playing volleyball then that video shows it's all good. However, if you will ever: shoot something other than volleyball shoot something other than those compositions (full or mid shots) stand anywhere other than right next to the court Then the video doesn't really cover what happens then. You might find that this guy went out and shot 2000 images that were all terrible for a variety of reasons, but managed to scrape together a dozen or so nice images and then tell a story of success in order to make himself appear like a pro, get paid work, drive people to subscribe, or use his affiliate link (or whatever motivation he has). Sadly, these things happen and it pays to be skeptical. The other guy took some nice shots, but think of all the other compositions he could have taken. I don't know about your role in shooting, but there are two kinds of shooting situations. The first is where you shoot what you shoot and you get what you get and you enjoy that. The second is that you must capture what happens. I would imagine that if you're shooting sports in any systematic way, then each player will want a selection of shots of them doing cool things, and it's not acceptable to deliver spectacular shots of some players and crappy shots of other players, regardless of where they were standing. Nice shallow DOF looks great, but if it comes at the expense of the composition or coverage you get of the other players, or that great moment that happened, then it's too high a price to pay. Renting is a great way to get quick feedback, but don't rent the good ones. If you rent a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, take them and use them, then you'll get great results but probably won't have learned anything. Only by actually shooting with limitations will you understand what impacts that limitation has, what options you have to overcome it, and if you can live with that. Every equipment purchase I have made has been based upon trying to go without, trying a lesser solution, trying a workaround, and only buying the expensive things when I tried to shoot real projects with lesser equipment.

I'm not really sure that those are the best combinations of lenses. For sports, it will depend on where you sit, but there is likely to be a large difference in distance between someone being on your side/end of the ground and the other side/end of the ground, and you'll need to zoom to compensate for this (as you can't walk onto the court/field). In this sense, I'd suggest a 70-200, or perhaps even 100-400, but you'll know better what you're shooting and what focal lengths work best for that. For non-sports, you are likely to have more flexibility in where you can walk, so you can zoom with your feet a lot more, but there are compromises here too. I shoot with a 35mm prime for my travel and events coverage, and find it's in the sweet spot, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't get a better shot if I was able to go wider or longer. In this sense a 24-105 would be the best range of focal lengths and would give you the focal length you'd want for most situations. Now, the question is you can afford. Ideally you'd buy a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8, but I'm guessing that's not in your budget. So, the question is what can you compromise? You could compromise the wider zoom and go for a cheaper prime, but you're sacrificing flexibility for docs / events. You could compromise the sports zoom and go for a cheaper prime, but you're sacrificing flexibility for sports. You could compromise the speed of the wider zoom and go for a cheaper zoom (kit lens), but you're sacrificing the background blur and maybe a tiny bit of image quality (although kit lenses are actually very good these days). You could compromise the speed of the sports zoom and go for a cheaper one, but you're sacrificing the background blur and maybe a tiny bit of low light performance. Essentially these are things you'd have to try for yourself and find out. I have invested in very nice lenses but only did that over time and with much trial and error, mostly trying out cheaper alternatives and only buying really expensive glass once I had confirmed that the focal length was right and that the aperture was actually required. Perhaps the alternative is to buy a second hand 24-70/4 or 24-105/4 and a 75-300/4-5.6 and try them out and see what focal lengths you actually use. Then sell them and buy what you have actually used when filming real situations you find yourself in. For the wider lens, try and set it to a particular focal length and just use it like that without zooming, that will tell you if you can work around having a fixed focal length for that kind of work.

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.

You can shoot this on the Oneplus 9 Pro for 800 euros don't forget

Completely unhinged pricing. Plus they took away the periscope optical zoom module, which is on the cheaper Xperia 1 III. New adventures in profit margins for shabby Sony. And a straight flat out lie about the sensor size too. It isn't a 1" sensor if you can't use it.

Screw Sony.

I see it becoming an established style, especially on social media. And real films will have to mimic it to get the authentic feel of that when needed by the script. Sure will be interesting to play with and see how it develops but for now it is 99% a TikTok thing to raise the production values of short social media measured in seconds. I am impressed that Apple managed to put ProRes codec into a phone as well. What is stopping the camera companies now exactly with their hardware and lack of internal ProRes. Just outdated chips or what?