Leaderboard

Anyway, I've pre-ordered one.

I wonder what you are more likely to find in most homes, an Ikea Billy bookcase or a Canon EF24-105mm f4? Its a close call, I reckon. They shifted so many of them in bundles with the 5DMK2 amongst other cameras because it was absolute bargain as an additional price standalone let alone versus buying a 24-70mm f2.8. Do they do the same with the RF version ? Because that would be the way forward to chuck those in with the camera as a bundle with the lens being at 50% of what it would cost extra which is exactly what Panasonic are doing with the S1 with their 24-105mm As it stands, its the fat part of £1300 for the RF24-105mm which is just not appealing at all. The Z and L mount both have the same problem to some extent but the third party range is what gives the other two the advantage not to mention E mount which just keeps motoring along with options everywhere. Of course, there is the massive back catalogue of EF to adapt onto RF but, unlike Nikon with the F mount adapter, this is nothing unique as all the other mounts can do that too. If I bought an RF camera, I definitely think that it wouldn't see a native RF lens for a very long time and thats probably been enough to keep me away so far as I can do that with everything else but also have affordable native glass too. As it stands, the most flexible mount is Z mount (primarily due to the unique ability to have F mount with full AF) closely followed by the E mount. E and L mount currently have the best options in affordable fast native lenses and Nikon are catching up. The key to that, of course, is the 3rd party support most notably from Sigma.

I have and use the g9mki a decent amount and don't mind the body size as the lenses are still all so small, especially compared to their FF equivalents. The g9, like most m43 cameras, really got attractive after a few firmware updates and price drops. It's so nice. I still have and love some smaller m43 cameras (gx85, bmpc OG, Z Cam E1) but when I'm doing a video gig I typically will use the g9. It's been wonderful to own and I bought it for $1000 USD new a few years ago. I'm currently still pretty tempted by the gh6 at $1300, but will probably hold off for a bit to see what they do. I love what m43s offers and personally don't mind if the top of the line bodies are a a bit chunky. The platform is still wonderful with the lenses they already have out. I do agree that I hope we see some more compact bodies with the new sensor and now PDAF soon though, but I don't mind the g9ii using the s5ii body.

I know the Single Biggest thing that would make the G9ii sell in the truckloads. ... A Netflix Certification 😎

Those lens are 'only' 10k each. Probably makes a difference 😉

I think they got quite right, people that can afford expensive glass will go buy them at premium and sell their EF ones that allow people with less budget to get great lenses. The sport example is a good one just look how affordable a EF 200-400 1.4x has become.. Would you buy a mid range RF 85 1.4 or a cheaper used EF 85 1.2? Would you buy a mid range RF 24-70 F4 when you can get a cheaper used EF 24-70 II 2.8? Most of the people criticizing RF lenses they don't own them, is funny to observe. I sold my EF 24-70 II 2.8, EF 50 1.2, RF 35 1.8 (btw very good lens for the price) and EF 24 1.4 for a RF 28-70 2.0, one of the best decision ever, but this also allowed people to get really good EF lens cheaper. If the EF lens support would not be as good as it is on the R cameras, I would agree but they mostly work better than on DSLR.... so plenty of good options and some gets cheaper and cheaper, it is a good thing for people with limited budget.

I think I understand where @IronFilm is coming from - the advantage of a larger body is that you get dedicated buttons and other things that are useful on set. Think about it, if there was no use for something then they wouldn't add it to the camera, regardless of how large they were allowed to make it. On a controlled set you'd imagine that they'd have a proper cinema lens with remote follow-focus etc attached, matte box, v-mount power, monitor, and the whole thing would be rigged appropriately. By the time you add all that then the difference between an FX3 and FX6 is maybe only an extra 25% to the size of the whole rig.

Let's assume you are product manager in a Japanese camera company. You want to add a new video oriented hybrid to your line up. By video oriented hybrid I mean a video camera that can be used for still photography, rather than a still camera that can shoot video very well. Please be specific about the specs. And consider, as a product manager, you should have a clear plan for future updates releasing every 2 years, and at least one firmware update in between. Also be realistic to keep the price at $2k. I don't want to know what you personally want. I want to know what you think the market wants. Thanks.

Some thoughts on RF lenses https://www.eoshd.com/news/leading-for-now-but-have-canon-got-it-wrong-with-rf-lenses/ Everyone loved EF, I am not sure the RF range is going down as well?

I've PM'd you 🙂

The size of the arsehole when said earwig has been created by Panasonic's MFT design team.

Straight off the camera, no further crop. It has the resolution to do it justice. Will shoot some Cinema DNG with it tomorrow

Somehow relevant to my question. Now they're comparing iPhone 15 pro 5x camera to 24-70mm lens at 70mm. Yes, DSLR image has higher quality, but the fact that we're now doing this comparisons shows that a $3000 camera lens combo should deliver a lot of value to stay attractive for younger generation.

Right, now I get it. Throughout this thread I thought that people were saying "Look how huge it is..... by giving it the body of the S5 they made it huge" when actually they were saying "Look at how the mk2 is the same size as the mk1 - that's outrageous - every camera update should be drastically smaller!" TBH, if we're going to judge everyone that didn't give us what they could have given us, we'd all better be saving up for an Alexa, because the people who worked on every other camera released in the history of the world are going in front of a firing squad tomorrow at dawn.

Funny enough, it's Canon's decision to offer the EF-RF adapters - specifically the ND filter and .071x ones - that has given the EF lens a massive leg up. Currently I have the RF 35mm f/1.8 and I see myself buying the RF 24-70 f/2.8 next - but aside from that I am a happy camper with my EF-L lenses on my R5C and R5. I've also sold my 1DC and 5D MKIII so it's not like I'm ever going back to the EF mount - it's just that Canon has given us a nice lane for RF-EF users, and I love it!

I can say I personally switched away from Canon (despite LOVING their cameras) when my R6 got lost because of the RF mount. When I bought it I figured more options would quickly become available, but there's just no reasonably priced upgrade path, unlike with L mount. You either buy crappy plastic 1.8 primes or 2500$ ultra amazing lenses.

I think the G9 flew under a lot of people's radar on the video side as they didn't really care about it because it was all about the GH5 at that time. The GH5 though did get the same "not keen on the direction of travel for MFT size wise" from many people but it got away with it because of the video specs so everyone was prepared to accept it. The issue now though is not necessarily just that the G9Mkii has the video specs that have aroused interest so its under the microscope (or not actually considering the size of it) a lot more but that what has changed from 2017 when the original G9 was launched. At that time, there was no FF camera from Panasonic. Or indeed an APS-C one. So if you wanted to get their flagship camera then it was what it was and you had no choice. In that respect, the increased size was actually something that helped them as in "it is arguably the best MFT camera around, therefore its obvious that it is this big" etc. However, two years later, they did have a FF camera and that was even bigger which actually preserved that "tope of the range must be bigger" conceit for both cameras and still made it appear the MFT compact system ethos was in play when looking at them in comparison. That was all well and good until the S5 came along because then the whole compact system alternative fell apart because it was actually bigger than the full frame camera. With the Mark2 versions of the G9 and S5, they are now identical of course so, for me, the fact that the G9Mk2 is fractionally smaller than the G9 is moot because as soon as the S5 came out then the G9 was too big anyway. In my view, it got away with it because there was no FF camera from Panasonic at the time and then when one did show up two years later, it actually helped the perception of the G9 because it was also somewhat on the chunky side. As demonstrated by the S5/S5ii. Irrespective of the existence of their full frame cameras, I'd still say the G9 (as I said even from the GH3 onwards) was pulling MFT into the wrong direction for me compared to what they had been doing even in DSLR shapes. (NB before the "ah but the top panel display" comments start its worth remembering that the G9MK2 doesn't have one now either) An optimist would say that at least they've marginally cut the size of the G9MK2 from the MK1 and that is a sign of progress back towards the compact system ethos but its the things that have happened around it during those six years that effectively make it an increase in real terms. So, I'll say it again that this is a fine camera but ultimately the problem with it is that the S5ii exists. Panasonic really finding their way with their FF cameras has coincided almost in lock step with them losing their way with MFT cameras.

Not sure why they would get into a market where everyone and his dog seems to be convinced that their current products will render that market obsolete to all but a dwindling niche of people. It would be like Tesla making a petrol driven car. Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, Leica and RED have all tried to make phone based cameras to reach a prosumer/pro market of film makers and photographers. It never ends well. In the case of RED, it was up there with the ET cartridges in the landfill episode in terms of "lets forget that ever happened" failure. I don't even think that Apple are that arsed about selling the software for creators anymore as long as everyone is using their hardware to run everyone else's apps. Whatever profit they were making on FCPX that they now lose to Resolve they can easily recoup with the price gouging on RAM etc. Apple are currently sat on a cash pile of $165 Billion. Set against the entire worldwide market for cameras this year of $5 Billion. When you can release incremental updates of your products every year and still have people worshipping at your feet at the product launches, I'm not sure there is much motivation there to get a piece of a market that - despite our obsession with it - is actually only comparable to, for example, the sewing machine market.

Hi everyone! Another music Video coming along. Shot on the blackmagic 4K with Metabones and Sigma 16-35mm and Helios 55mm. On the outside shots i had ND filters with IR correction. Also there is a small DJI camera in the mix for all the shots from above ( Just put it in a stick) . On this shoot i really missed an autofocus feature. Also i had some problems with the grading in the first half of the song as the lighting conditions were very different in each set up. Maybe i would have needed to have a closer look on the white balance. Maybe also a grading session in Resolve would have helped, i did the grading in premiere.

What i am really looking forward to are the information that will come out of the postproduction companies, as these will apply to most "prosumer" cameras. Also "The Creator" is going in the direction of the "Sony" look and taking advantage of it - and many shots are just the basis for extensive VFX work. I assume these cameras would not be used for a feelgood rom com where you want to get soft skintones from 45 year old actors...

Possibly because it kind of demonstrates that one of the least most important components of movie making is the camera itself? Beyond a certain point. I’m sure they were not using the f4-5.6 kit lens but some 20k$ cine lenses and maybe less than in some other productions, but whatever lighting etc was needed. We know that even just in commercial jobs, the type of camera you have can get you or at least deny you, the job. ’Average’ tool in skilled hands etc… In terms of sensor though, just how far off a Venice is that of the FX3? Barely anything.

Instead of a third camera maybe just get iPhone 15 instead 🤔

The article did say for big scene there is still a lot of crew, and down to 2 if that is all they need. I guess we will know more once the movie is released? Maybe he chose fx3 cause it look more like standard camera than cinema camera who knows.

I doubt Sony is put out much by these numbers. Sony has never been that much of a 'camera' or 'lens' manufacturer - the 'camera business' is just a show case for their sensors. And in the sensor business they totally dominate (do Canon even use their own sensors anymore?) Of course Sony's really big market is smartphone image sensors. There was a time that a smartphone had one image sensor - my latest phone (Xiaomi) has '5' (all Sony) and including a 1 inch sensor. So I would reckon Sony are pretty ok with Canon dominating what is essentially a declining niche mirrorless camera market, Sony have essentially capture the fastest 'growth' area of the photo industry...

Good points. The marketing-push regarding it being shot on the FX3 seems somewhat inorganic to me, and I say that as a massive fan of the FX3. The other issue is that (based on the trailer) it does not seem like a movie that showcases the potential of the FX3 for low-budget indie filmmakers. This is on account of the dense, and expensive, SFX and post-production which does not represent features of the camera itself. I'm sure a breakthrough genuinely-indie movie shot on the FX3 will come soon. It is a very interesting camera.

The domestic segment might be the part of the picture you're missing... I work corporate and the people who wear business attire to the office and are "into photography" tend to buy "the best" like the 5D and 24-70 F2.8. When I was filming my kids sports games the parents either used their phones or had enormous DSLRs like 5D or D800. When I used to go to photography meetups maybe 10-15 years ago about two thirds had pocket cameras and one third had 5D / D800 level cameras. One woman whose husband had a fancy job was a stay-at-home mum and had a 1DX and all three of the F2.8 zooms, but she had a longer lens too which was seriously long and looked ridiculous TBH. Looking at the lenses now I think it might not have been the 100-400, but might have been the 200-400mm F4. It was so long it made the 1DX look small. Obviously a low percentage of normal people are buying Canon DSLR / MILCs, but there are so many more affluent amateurs than there are professionals, it would be easy for the consumers to dominate the sales figures. They're also a hidden segment - unless you go to kids sports carnivals then you'd never know they existed. You could say that this market segment is driven by reputation, but let's be honest, for stills Canon cameras are absolutely spectacular.