jonpais

Almost every video I’ve shared uses ETC mode. It’s a great feature.

I love the work of Hong Sang-Soo.

I own Fuji and Panasonic and that’s been my experience too.

I own the Video Assist and I’ve watched several tutorials showing off the P4K menu interface. But I’m afraid I much prefer fn buttons to diving into a menu, however nicely thought out it is. But that’s just me.

As far as menus go, I haven’t particularly liked any of them, whether Fuji, Sony or Panasonic. But being able to assign the most frequently used items to function buttons and having a customizable ‘my menu’ takes some of the pain away. Sony’s also got that fn menu with room for 12 additional customizable items which is pretty great if you ask me. Just how many fn buttons are there on the P4K anyway?

They have been coming out with some interesting solutions, including this one.

Fly by wire lenses are really not ideal for focus pulling. Manual focus lenses are better; cinema lenses are the best. If you haven't already placed your order for a Z6, it's entirely possible you may not get it before the Panasonic FF cameras are released. Just sayin'

True, but I was referring to native mount lenses, not adapted. Fair point though.

Chris and Jordan can always be counted on to deliver a thoughtful and honest review and thankfully they haven't changed a bit since leaving TCSTV.

I love the Fuji 90mm f/2, but apparently the new much lighter Samyang 85mm f/1.8 (manual focus) lens is an excellent alternative and costs half as much ($400).

@webrunner5 YT saved me weeks of trying to figure out how to set up my a7 III on my own.

I’m guessing half the time, I shoot with ETC mode on the GH5 or s35 mode on the Sony.

85mm, but you probably already knew that. ? Second up would be 35mm.

Okay, so maybe I’m slow - but I watched around fourteen minutes of Tony Northrup’s video and didn’t hear him mention Panasonic abandoning m43. Does he say it at the very end or something? ? Now I’m beginning to see why some think YT is a waste of time though...

A quick google search didn’t turn up much when searching for ‘scratches X-T3’ I did find this interesting tidbit over at mirrorless comparisons however: The X-H1 also sports a more robust chassis which is 25% thicker than that of the X-T3 and features scratch resistance equivalent to 8H surface hardness.

Now that would be something.

Not gonna disagree that the GM lenses are costly. But coming from Panasonic, the Leica 12mm f/1.4 cost me roughly $1,300 and weighs in at about 12 ounces. The Sony 24mm f/1.4 will cost $1,400 and weighs just around 16 ox. The Olympus 45mm f/1.2 Pro, my favorite m43 lens, cost me $1,200; the Sony 85mm f/1.8 cost $600, and on the a7 III is actually lighter than the GH5 combo. And the difference in price between the prized Voigtlander m43 lenses and their FE mount lenses is not very great either. But the numbers, bodies and lenses can all be shuffled around and we'd get different results each time. I used to carry around the Fujinon 50-140mm f/2.8 everywhere I went and it's a beast; I decided to avoid fast zooms for the most part when selecting FF lenses.

Thanks, maybe I wasn't clear, Andrew. First of all, I was talking about native lenses, not adapted lenses. m43 struggles enough with AF without throwing a focal reducer in the mix. If I'm going to be shooting with FF glass, I'd sooner pair it with a FF sensor. The Leica DG Elmarit is equivalent in FF terms to f/5.6 - and nobody here's buying one anyhow as it costs $2,500. The only truly "fast" Panasonic zoom you can point to is one that may not even ship for a year or more. Those are my thoughts; I realize you and many forum members actually like focal reducers; and that quite a few here could care less about shallow depth of field.

What people don't seem to realize is that for the most part, m43 is saddled with relatively slow variable aperture zooms or slow telephoto lenses - so whatever savings there are in size and weight are offset by worse image quality. Even a lens as superb as the Leica DG Elmarit 200mm f/2.8, - which sets the benchmark for image quality in the m43 system (in a word - sensational!) - costs some $2,500 and is little lighter than say Sony's 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6 - and costs just as much. You could argue that the DG Elmarit is $10,000.00 cheaper than Sony's 400mm f/2.8; a hundred times smaller and lighter; and gathers the same amount of light - but viewers could care less about all that. Ultimately what viewers are seeing is the much shallower depth of field and more pleasing bokeh of the FF lens - not how much money you saved or the shutter speed or ISO you shot at. We could also throw video AF into the mix, as shooting with such long lenses at wide apertures requires dead nuts focusing accuracy. And m43 drops the ball there too. I'd also be willing to wager that no forum members even own the DG Elmarit.

An easyrig can also be used in combination with a shoulder-mounted ENG style camera for added stability and fewer trips to the chiropractor.

I enjoyed the video bunches - grungy b&w, a stompin' soundtrack, a gorgeous playmate model - but results like that could have been effortlessly achieved or surpassed with something as pedestrian as a three year-old $500 Lumix G7 - and they have been!

Pierre T Lambert’s $2,300 GM 16-35mm crashes to the ground while on assignment in the Maldives. A teardown.

@BTM_Pix to the rescue! ?

If there is any need to clear up any bs about me being a Sony fanboy, I still have my GH5 and still shoot with it. But the size/weight/cost thing can mean all things to all people. My GM1 is super small and lovely. You can buy either a gargantuan Sony universal zoom for untold amounts of cash or pick up the Tamron. Numbers can be juggled to have them say whatever anyone likes them to say.

size and weight are only an advantage when it comes to long telephoto, fast universal zooms and ultra fast primes. APS-C cameras like Fuji’s remarkable X-T20 not only have exceptional image quality, but are compact enough to fit in your pocket. For Sony FF, if you’re content with primes, you can acquire a nice set of lenses from around 10mm up till 85mm or so that can all easily be flown on the lightest gimbals on the market. And there are the new compact Sony 24mm f/1.4, a soon-to-be released tiny Voigtlander 50mm f/1.2 and of course, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. The Tamron actually costs no more than Panasonic’s 12-35mm. (I know, not 100% the same!) hehe As far as cost goes, if you’re looking for a set of Voigtlanders, the price difference between m43 and FF is negligible. I paid around $800 or so for the Nokton 17.5mm several years back and the same for their 65mm APO-Lanthar a couple months ago. My Olympus 45mm Pro cost almost double what I paid for Sony’s lightweight 85mm f/1.8; and compared to the GH5, the a7 III combo is actually lighter! Premium long telephoto lenses by PanLeica and Olympus are unquestionably smaller than their FF counterparts, but can run thousands of dollars. Rokinon FF cine lenses and Sigma Art lenses are also modestly priced.