Chrad

We'll see. People said the same about the original Pocket when it was being released. This one is plagued by the same issues that stopped that camera from becoming more widely used among the amateur filmmaker base: terrible battery life that necessitates rigging and enormous file sizes. It is a great advancement in bringing down the price for pro features like raw, but I don't see these cameras as democratising filmmaking as much as smartphones, or even more expensive ILCs.

GX9?

Hard to buy that. There are barely any M43 sensors on the market. Is there really another out there with the same oversized dimensions and dual ISO that we somehow haven't heard about?

Good point. Sigma is exactly the kind of company they'd be analogous to as a third party lens manufacturer - focus on quality and sharpness, with innovative designs. These days I'd wager that despite the legacy of the brand, Olympus means less to the average Canikon/Sony buyer than Sigma. They're not the company they want to pit themselves against as the market consolidates. Will there even be much room for third parties with Sony and Nikon trying to lock them out of their new mounts? If Olympus are not to join the L-mount, a partnership would be a nice feather in Sony's cap. It could potentially carry over the Oly fanbase and strengthen Sony's position as 'the winning team' in mirrorless, but does Sony need such a partner alongside Zeiss?

Zoolander/Diamantino is beloved by everyone but suffers a fall from grace and his position at the top of his field at the beginning of the film. He's targeted by right wing conspirers, who choose him for their experiment because he's too stupid to realise he's being manipulated. In Zoolander, he's brainwashed to kill the new Malaysian prime minister who wants to outlaw child labour, but thinks he's spending time at a 'day spa'. Like how the manipulators play on Diamantino's love of refugees, the villain in Zoolander hooks him by claiming he'll help him with his dream of opening a centre for disadvantaged children. Instead of a government agent, it's a journalist who investigates the plot involving Zoolander and falls in love with him along the way. There are too many similarities to the strange and unique plot of Zoolander for it to be a coincidence, although the stylistic approach is a bit different. I did find the freewheeling pacing and tone of Diamantino to be interesting.

I haven't seen most of those yet, but Diamantino is essentially Zoolander, but with Ronaldo substituted in for a model, and 'topical' references to Brexit. It's hardly pushing new boundaries in cinema. Dogman is pretty conventional. I don't think it's fair to say these are more inventive than, say, Children of Men. Heard good things about Lazzarro, seeing it tomorrow.

I recommend David Lynch's Inland Empire. Shot on Sony PD-150s with noise and blown highlights everywhere, but it works for the surreal horror vibe of the film and shows that the ugly imperfections of DV can make for a pretty special look.

This is just what Petty said at the press conference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OfzwfJtfMI&t=25m37s

They said at the press conference that they get asked about the Pocket 2 in every interview, so they didn't want to do NAB this year without showing it, and they felt ready to unveil it because the camera is finished. It just needs to be mass produced.

A still is probably going to be a much more useful takeaway from a casual shooting environment than a video clip. A good still is more easily singled out and more easily presented to an audience. A video clip usually needs to be contextualised by other scenes surrounding it, or it can feel aimless. There's a lot more work involved there. Generally I'd agree with the consensus that video is better used when you have an idea (or are committed to finding the idea) behind what you are shooting.

Killing the GX8 and its potential upgrade makes a lot of sense. The camera market is shrinking. Panasonic don't need a pro and enthusiast DSLR style body, a pro and enthusiast rangefinder, pro and enthusiast compacts, and now specialty offshoots of the GH line as well. It's overkill. I don't think the GX8 sold well, and if the G9 really is replacing the G85 as has been rumoured, they need to focus something on the lower end of the market. Pushing a few models that each have a specific section of the market in mind makes way more sense than releasing a whole bunch that trample on each other's intended demographic. Makes it harder to market too.

Yeah, I like dark scenes to look dark. And shooting this way means that even if graded to a more natural look, there'll still be blown highlights everywhere. My kind of test for this would be to take it somewhere really sparsely lit and crank up the ISO to approximate what the human eye sees.

It harms my opinion of them and I hear it spread around, so I'd say bad battery life is part of their brand image at this point.

It probably is part of the point, but I think Panasonic care about their reputation as far as batteries are concerned. GH3 and GH4 could go all day on a single battery, and I like to think they were proud enough of the positive feedback they got for that feature that they'd have been hesitant about cutting it to the level of the GH5. If they cut the battery life further on this model, they'd sacrifice one of their perceived advantages, at a time when other camera companies are nipping at their heels. They did the same with IBIS, but I guess someone at Panasonic perceives 'reliability' as more important to the brand perception than 'stabilised'.

Well I can't say we'll never see it, or that it's impossible to do now, but I'd think the two together would be a massive power drain, no? Every Panasonic camera shortened in battery life from their predecessor when IBIS was introduced. GH5 can be powered on for much shorter than GH4. GH5s is only slightly less power hungry than the GH5, suggesting the dual ISO is also a big power drain. If these features were bundled together right now you might be looking at Blackmagic Pocket like battery life.

No actually - IBIS is always active, because the sensor is suspended by springs. When it's turned off in the camera, the system is still operating to hold the sensor still.

I think this guy would overheat like a Sony A7 and have similar battery life if it were running dual native ISO and IBIS simultaneously. Maybe I'm just a sucker for their PR, but it makes sense to me - both features are big power drains.

I can't see it out this year. They released the GH5s just now and updated the GH5 four months ago. It's too soon for a new GH, with two currently supported models being pushed. I think GH models will stick to a two year average cycle.

I doubt we'll see a GH6s for two years. GX95 this year, GH6 and G10 year after, GH6s year after that. I bet GH5s will be as nice paired with the GH6 as with the GH5. I think it will fill its niche for a good while to come.

It sounds like a beautiful camera. I don't have a Sony and I've long wanted a low light specialist but I'm very invested in M43. With other cameras to do what this can't (e.g. IBIS, long battery runs) I think it's a great addition to the kit. It's a specialist camera for specific uses - the richest looking 4K images for controlled productions, and a cam that sees into the darkness on a sticks. Given the power draw of the dual ISO (making the camera only slightly more energy efficient than the GH5, down specifically from the GH4 largely due to IBIS), I can believe that IBIS was cut for heat and energy efficiency reasons.

There's one reason: to double the battery life. IBIS is a massive power hog. It's kind of ironic that the ultra low light performer (if that's what this camera is) that one would therefore think of as a 'run and gun' camera, may not have IBIS, and the one that's going to be relegated to controlled lighting situations for those with access to this one will have it.

No IBIS could be what gives it something like the amazing battery life of the GH3 and 4.

This thread is taking a bizarre turn. The moral standard that we should promote empathy for the depressed so as to lessen the stigma around talking about what they're going through. The idea that we should reach out to the suffering so that their pain may be eased. Why are 'clicks' wrong, in this case? Because it raises one man's ego and personal gain over the wellbeing of society. If we look at this strictly from a utilitarian perspective, I think the joy this video can bring people is less than the harm it can cause. What if I'm wrong and on the wrong side of history? I don't know, what if? I have no way of knowing that now, but I do know that I feel a strongly about the morals in place in this case. Who decides what's wrong? Society, and judging by the size of the outcry, it's largely voicing that what Logan Paul did is wrong. This idea of questioning the moral standard doesn't make much sense to me, because we're all playing a part in shaping the moral standards of the present and the future. By raising our voices about what we think, we're doing our tiny bit to make the world a little bit more like what we'd want it to be. Sitting out of the conversation and getting this detachedly analytical about it is surrendering the shaping of our morality to the Logan Pauls of the world, who have no qualms about acting purely in their self-interest, apparently untroubled by this kind of introspection.

The best case scenario is that the video draws people attention to Japan's suicide rate and the tragic reality of suicide increasing around the world. The worst case scenario is that the video furthers the social isolation of the suicidally depressed. Older, successful role model Logan Paul sends a message to impressionable youngsters that people who commit suicide are a joke and encourages a lack of empathy for them. I think it's really important that there's been such a backlash, and the morals and ethics that our entertainment reflects are very important - particularly when it's targeted to still developing minds.

Bullshit. Laughing at a dead body for views is not a beneficial way to raise awareness of suicide rates, and Logan Paul's vlogs constantly cross outside of the ethical boundaries of documentary filmmaking, so he can't be defended under those terms either. Seen as a journalist, he is lower than a joke. Censorship? It's not censorship to reject an entertainer who was violated the trust and morality of the community. If he was a TV star, this would lose him his job. Sponsors etc pulling out isn't censorship... "it' s just business."