IronFilm

In recent years I've been trying hard to not buy as much camera gear, as after all, surely I have plenty already for casual usage? Plus my professional focus is on the Sound Dept these days, and that's where my money should be going instead. However I did at the end of this year go a little silly in jumping into the X Mount ecosystem, as I've got a kinda-ish decent-ish Fuji stills camera (the X-A3 from years ago, from before Fujifilm eBay prices went crazy) for casual shooting with, but have only ever used adapted lenses on it from other mounts. So I recently put together a very cheap Fujifilm lens kit of native X mount lenses: 12mm f2.8 / 21mm f1.2 / 25mm f2 / 56mm f1.7 (I half wonder if the 21mm f1.2 lens was a mistake, was using it for the first time yesterday, and it was a lot bigger and heavier than I imagined! Perhaps a bit too much so for the little X-A3? Maybe I should have got the TTArtisan 27mm f/2.8 lens instead) I feel this is one of the big themes of the late 2010's and the 2020's, the rise of third party lens designs and manufacturers from China. You can put together a cheap set of lenses now for so very little. Is why I went for this with my Fujifilm X-A3 camera when I wanted a cheap but decently good-ish setup for a small walk around / travel kit. Because when I look at what other small sized mirrrorless bodies I have, then my Sony a5100 died ages ago, my Panasonic GF3 is far far too old now, and the Samsung NX300 is an evolutionary dead end. And buying those extra X Mount lenses cost a similar amount or even less than what it would cost to buy a replacement body for the a5100/GF3 of similar vintage to the X-A3 (late 2016) then using my existing MFT / E Mount lenses. Such as the Sony a6300 (early 2016) or Panasonic GX8 (mid 2015). As for 2025? I will go back to trying to resist getting any more cameras or lenses. (but maybe that 27mm f/2.8 lens will tempt me which I mentioned earlier. Or maybe I will finally succumb to getting that Nikon D750/D500/D810 I've wanted for years. Or maybe the Fujfilm X-M5 or X-H1 or X-S10 will tempt me as an upgrade if I enjoy the X-A3 too much) If anything, maybe I should try to end 2025 with less cameras than I'll start 2025 with. Perhaps selling my FS7, F3, NX300, and some of my Panasonic cameras. Maybe. Or maybe I'll just keep on procrastinating downsizing. Then again if I go ahead with my 2025 plans to move overseas, then I will definitely need to take downsizing more seriously. Next month, after spending NYE with filmmaking friends here in Auckland, then I plan on traveling to NZ's South Island to have a holiday there for a few weeks. Been a long time since I've visited the South Island, will be a fun road trip.

Yes, would be nice if Panasonic released cheaper primes (don't have to be weather sealed, f1.4, or made out of carbon, or whatever. Just give us those cheap "nifty fifties" that other systems would have, such as Canon 50mm f1.8 EF lens that would sell for only a little more than a hundred bucks. Or similar for Nikon, you can even go for less than a hundred bucks from B&H if you don't mind buying a Nikon refurbished lens. Although it seems the switch from DSLR to Mirrorless means the cheapest first party lenses seem to be a bit pricey now, the cheapest Canon 50mm for RF is US$199 vs US$125 for EF mount) I see also personally the issue of lack of third party support as an even bigger sticking point, normally if you pick any mount, then filter for only AF lenses then sort by price, you'll see a tonne of cheap lenses being offered. For example I have to go more than half way down this page of Z Mount AF lenses before I discover the first Nikon branded lens: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Mirrorless-Camera-Lenses/ci/17912?sort=PRICE_LOW_TO_HIGH&filters=fct_a_focus-type_5738%3Aautofocus%2Cfct_lens-mount_3442%3Anikon-z-mount Let's compare with the situation for L Mount: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Mirrorless-Camera-Lenses/ci/17912/N/4196380428?sort=PRICE_LOW_TO_HIGH&filters=fct_a_focus-type_5738%3Aautofocus%2Cfct_lens-mount_3442%3Aleica-l-mount They have between one and zero 3rd Party Lenses which are cheaper than the cheapest first party lens. ("one or zero" depending on if you count Sigma as third party lenses or not, as normally you would, but then again they do make L Mount cameras) I recently put together a very cheap Fujifilm lens kit (12mm f2 / 21mm f1.2 / 25mm f2 / 56mm f1.7), which if I'd tried to do the same for L Mount (to use with say a cheap S1 or S5 mk1) might have cost twice or even thrice as much.

Not much point having a S35 mode for a VV/LF 4K sensor if you want to shoot 4K S35, as it's impossible. That's not what I'm seeing, I haven't worked on a production with a Mini LF in a while. ARRI 35 are far more problem. I think most people saw the Mini LF has stop gap measure that ARRI had to rush out so they could shoot "true 4K" (not upscaled 4K such as the AMIRA or Mini did), a demand that numerous productions (such as Netflix) insisted upon. Of course once the ARRI 35 came out then that both solved the native 4K issue and gave the shooter a better camera as well. Doubt we'll see that happening within the next decade.

I understand it was a very brief article, but it was weird in what it focused on (such as a lengthy discussion of Sharp’s 8K, a camera that never sold even one) while not mentioning at all a major MFT camera such as the GH4.

An interesting example of what's possible with AI now in the hands of a talented film maker. Every shot of this film was done via text-to video with Google Veo 2. It took thousands of generations to get the final film, but no VFX, no clean up, no color correction has been added: everything is straight out of Veo 2. All sound design, editing, music and prompting by Jason Zada. But remember, people shouldn't be looking at where we are at currently. But rather they should be looking at the trajectory. What could AI video generation do 25yrs ago vs 10yrs ago vs 5yrs ago vs 3yrs ago vs 18 months ago vs 1yr ago vs 6 months ago vs today? It's very rapidly improving! We're doing today what was utterly unimaginable a few short years ago. What does that mean for tomorrow, or six months, or three years or six years from now?

Sure, I know that, but also the terms are kinda interchangeable-ish, especially when talking about the low end of filmmaking such as FS5/FS7 cameras. The majority of the lens I use myself on my FS7 would be marketed as APS-C not exclusively as S35. Why use the photographer's terminology of FF rather than saying VV / LF? Same point here as with APS-C vs S35. The terminology is kinda-ish interchangeable, and we all know what each other means when one or another is used. And in the professional world of filmmaking, then S35 is still reigning supreme. ARR 35 is the dominant preferred choice when possible. The older ARRI ALEXA Mini is still very popular. Even the Sony VENICE still gets very frequently used in S35 mode, to ensure compatibility with S35 lenses. And when it comes to RED, then I personally by far see the RED Komodo (or Komodo-X) used far more often than I see RED's VV cameras on set. Has Sony ever made any Super 35mm lenses?? Aside from their sadly discontinued PL mount lenses (a pity they discontinued them! Prior to the explosion of chinese PL lenses on the market, then the Sony PL lenses were the best value PL lens set you could buy. So I wish more of them were still being sold, so thus more of them would exist on eBay, and it would be easier for me to get more lenses to further build up my set), and discontinued 18mm-252mm, and their still current 18-110mm lens (which also gets branded as APS-C) then I don't think Sony has made any other lenses which are explicitly marketed as S35? Sony simply has never been a big maker of cine lenses, in any format. (but yet, they've made more for S35 than they've made for VV/LF) Just use a crop mode instead. I wish! But then I can't shoot 4K with the FX6, if a S35 lens is being used. That's curious it's still listed there. Anyway, you can't buy a new in stock FS7mk2 from B&H, Adorama, AbelCine, CVP or anywhere else I tried to look. Image quality is kinda lacking by 2024 standards, can't even do 4K 10bit internally. While the likes of a Sony PXW-Z90 has some overlap with the FS5/FS7/FX30/"FX60" user, they really are quite different! (heck, these users also have some overlap with VENICE & ARRI 35 users. Doesn't mean one of these cameras are always an appropriate substitute for the other) It's Canon, not Sony, further proving my point Sony has kinda abandoned the S35 / APS-C filmmaker.

That was a very brief timeline indeed! No mention at all of GH1/GH2/GH3/GH4/GH5/GH6/BGH1/E1/E2/E2-M4/BMCC-MFT/BMPCC/Kinefinity/BOSMA/Chronos/etc? I couldn't imagine ever discussing the history of MFT and not mentioning any of them at all!

Some of those closed eBay auctions are coming with a kit lens. But if not, just pick up a nifty fifty from a dead mount for less than twenty bucks.

ehhh... if someone is going to spend eighty bucks on a camera then for goodness sake don't get one from Amazon You can get an old Sony NEX body instead for that price: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=sony+nex&_sacat=0&_sop=15&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=3000

Although then again, perhaps I could argue Sony has kinda abandoned pro APS-C filmmakers, just like APS-C photographers. Where are the APS-C replacements for the FS5/FS7/F5/F55???? I really feel like "an FX60" (an FX6 with a FX30 sensor) is needed if Sony wishes to show they truly are committed to the workingman S35 videographer. At the moment he only has these four options: 1) use an ancient camera, such as the FS7 2) use the prosumer grade FX30 3) stretch his budget to get a Sony FX9, then use it only in S35 mode 4) ditch Sony and jump to another brand (RED Komodo X? Blackmagic Design URSA Mini Pro? Canon C70?)

I agree, I think Sony and Fujifilm are the two best right now for APS-C. Fujifilm because well X Mount is APS-C, so of course they are taking it quite seriously. And the X-H / X-T / X-S series of cameras shows they'll cater to the mid to upper level photographers. With Sony, you've got an insane amount of E Mount choices for lenses, plus various nice first party lenses such as the Sony 18-110mm f4, and for photographers: Sony 16-55mm f2.8 / Sony 24mm f1.8 / Sony 16-70mm f4 / Sony 10-20mm f4 / Sony 15mm f1.4 / etc When it comes to camera bodies though, you've got the Sony FX30 which is arguably "the best" APS-C body there is today for pro filmmaking. But what is there for photograhers??? There is only the Sony a6700 at the top of their ranks, it's certainly falling far short of being a truly pro body. If Sony is to take APS-C photographers seriously I'd say at the minimum they need to put an APS-C sensor inside an a7 series body. (although of course their dream would be an APS-C sensor in an a9 body, but doubtful that will happen)

Slashing the price to clear the old stock out? Might be hints at a new replacement coming in 2025? Perhaps the Pyxis with a MFT mount and the same sensor in it. Maybe with some other cost saving measure? (cheaper/smaller monitor?) If they could release "a Pyxis MFT" sigificantly cheaper than their FF version, say for $1750, then maybe that explains clearing out the BMD Pocket bodies.

Sometimes I even forget it got released. I guess the GH5 was such a strong release, but when the GH6 got released there were so many other great cameras being released that it got a bit lost. Agreed, they've got their flagship G9mk2 / GH7 and their lower end G97. I doubt they'll squeeze anything in between those or below the G97 (with "a DSLR-ish style body") in the next couple of years. Their next MFT hybrid/stills release will be either an eventual update to their flagships, or maybe finally an update to their "rangefinder style bodies" (GX / GM / GF series).

They want to hit two different price points, while still using essentially the same hardware inside. Let's say there is a "widget" you wish to sell. You could sell this fully featured widget for say $1.2K or for $1K Am sure you're well aware of the laws of supply vs demand? So as prices go up, there is less demand. If you sell a product at say $1K you'll get perhaps let's say 10,000 buyers. But if you increase it to $1.1K it's perhaps 7,500 buyers while at $1.2K it's perhaps 5,000 buyers and so on and on. Thus you might conclude $1K is the optimal price to sell at. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumer_surplus.asp Now there is also a concept of consumer surplus, which is the gap between the price a consumer pays for a good vs what they would have paid for it. From the perspective of the company, this is a missed opportunity! Ideally they'll fully capture this consumer surplus for themselves buy charging exactly what the consumer would have paid at the maximum for a product. That's called "First-degree price discrimination" (perfect price discrimination). Which is when you're charging each buyer the maximum they are willing to pay. However everyone has different price preferences, so no matter what price the company chooses, you'll end up having two groups: some who can't afford it, and others who'd have happily paid even more. Thus why there is also: Second-degree price discrimination: Offering bulk discounts or different pricing tiers based on quantity or quality. (there is also third-degree price discrimination, but I think my comment is already getting too long, and won't discuss that. There is even 4th-degree price discrimination, but we don't have universally agreed definitions of that, so it's more an informal term used, for instance for dynamic pricing) You'll see an example of 2nd-degree price discrimination if you ring up your local seller and ask for fifty Sanken COS-11D mics and ask them if they can give you a bulk order discount. While another example is when the manufacturer engages in product differentiation, so they can offer a product at multiple price points. Such as this example of selling a widget at both $1K and $1.2K (of course we see this product differentiation all the time, such as with microphones such as the DPA 2017 vs 4017, it's also why we saw the Lectro LMb and SMQV at two different price points, or the Sound Devices 633 vs the 688) Thus they're hopefully still capturing all the sales for people who'd pay $1K or more, they're also capturing at least a good sized chunk of those who'd pay $1.2K or more. (of course they're missing out on the opportunity to say sell at $1.5K to those who'd pay that. And I'm sure they're missing out on some higher value buyers who then change their mind and settle for the cheaper $1K widget. But presumably, overall it's a winning move to offer it at $1K and $1.2K vs just $1K, otherwise they wouldn't do it) Thus the company could have run the numbers and thus designed they're always going to be offering the product at two different price points. (or more... Sound Devices for instance offers theirs at three different price points: 833, 888, and Scorpio. Even though on the inside they're essentially "the same product", with 3 FPGAs) Another way of looking at this problem: You're going to have the cheaper $1K option and the more expensive $1.2K option, and together you'll be selling 10,000 of them. (because your entry point here is $1K, and from the earlier on supply vs demand curve we know that means you'll be selling 10,000 in this example) You've got various fixed costs, let's say $2M Thus each widget sale has $200 going towards covering that fixed cost. (plus of course various other costs such as the cut the retailer gets, or the manufacturing cost, etc... but we can assume those scale according to the number of units sold) If you were to drop the cheaper $1K option, and only be selling the $1.2K option (which we know will only sell 5,000 units) that means we now need $400 per widget sale to go towards the fixed costs! That means we'll have to increase the widget price to $1.4K to still maintain the profit margin as you had before without the extra $200/unit costs that have to be recovered. (of course increasing to $1.4K means even less sales! So in reality the optimal price to sell just one product line would be somewhere in between $1.2K and $1.4K, and thus you'll be losing out and never ever be able to fully recover the lost profits. But you hopefully have got my point already, and we don't need to go deeper into those hypothetical calculations) So once we've determined that we need to offer two different products, the question becomes how do we make them? It's likely a lot easier to both design and produce two products that have absolutely identical hardware on the inside, and only differentiated by software. (as a person who has worked professionally both in the software and hardware space, that's certainly my rule of thumb preference) Rather than having two different sets of hardware (likely forcing very different software for each as well! Due to the different hardware base)

To be clear, I was only referring to new sales. It's 1000x easier to keep an existing customer than to gain an entirely new customer. Every time a person quits the Nikon DSLR ecosystem there is a high risk they'll leak out to a competitor's brand instead when they move over to mirrorless. Keeping them within the Nikon DSLR ecosystem for just one more generation helps ensure that their eventually transition to mirrorless will be with Nikon, as it gives Nikon even more time to build out a deeper catalogue for the Z mount ecosystem. Also, Nikon treating their F Mount customers well and not dropping them like a hot potato as soon as they can, will give brownie points to Nikon. As it will build up trust that Nikon Z Mount ecosystem will be treated similarly, and will also exist for another fifty plus years as well. Any Nikon camera that's a D7x00 or above will have a screw drive motor in the lens mount. Yes I read that already, if that does happen, it will knock down my guesstimated odds of another Nikon DSLR being released. As it would remove yet another reason for bringing out a new generation DSLR. Yup, sales of DSLRs are still happening. For Nikon they're sitll selling a couple of hundred thousands DSLRs during the past year (vs 650K mirrorless cameras). However yes, those DSLR sales are in a steep decline, but yet I could still see them releasing a couple more DSLRs (plus or minus one) before they totally call it quits on DSLRs. As they're still selling a volume of just DSLRs that's bigger than some other smaller players have been.

Not if they're screw drive. You think the only DSLR cameras and lenses ever being sold are those which are currently on retailer shelves or in the warehouses?

It's impressive how well the Panasonic G85 has held up after 8yrs, I feel even today in late 2024 there is no better bargain buy (at this price point, sub US$300) than a secondhand G85 for filmmaking with. However will we still be saying that in 8yrs time about Panasonic's MFT? I don't think so at all, because the next 8yrs will not treat the G97 kindly. Likely in 8yrs time we'll talk instead about the Fujifilm X-S10 or the Fujifilm X-H1 and what crazy dirt cheap bargains they are to buy. Or perhaps the Sony FX30. Or maybe about how cheap full frame cameras are by then, I'd imagine you could pick up a Nikon Z6 mk1 or a Panasonic S1 mk1 / S5 mk1 or Sony a7S mk2 for a song once another 8yrs has passed by. Let's compare to the competition: vs Fujifilm X-M5, you'll pick the G97 for the EVF or the IBIS (or being fifty bucks cheaper). On everything else the Fujifilm wins? vs Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV, you'll go for Olympus for being $150 cheaper than the G97 kit, otherwise not sure why to choose Olympus? vs Canon, they've got the R10, R50, or R100. The R100 ruthlessly wins by a large margin when it comes to price, and the R10 wins on features / capabilities (except for IBIS) at merely a $150 price premium (that's after a $100 discount though). Probably the R50 is closest to the G97? Lacks IBIS, but is $150 cheaper than the G97 kit. vs Nikon Z50 mk1 with a 16-50mm lens, again it seems just IBIS (and very marginally higher resolution sensor, plus is $50 cheaper) is the only reason to go for the G97? vs Sony ZV-E10 / a6400 , again just like with Nikon / Canon, why go with Panasonic when on paper the Sony ZV-E10 or a6400 seems like a better deal? Aside from their lack of IBIS, which seems like the only thing going for Panasonic now. (but it means giving up dearly in other areas, such as AF) All in all, it's quite a quiet release. Far quieter than any of their other camera releases this year. 43rumors didn't even have it on their website yet when I checked!

I was just thinking, about how many cameras have been released in 2024. Most companies have released just one or two, as the rate of releases in this industry have massively released. Only two companies have released three cameras this year in 2024: https://sansmirror.com/newsviews-2/a-slow-year-in-mirrorless.html Fujifilm — X-T50, GFX 100S II, X-M5 Panasonic — GH7, S9, G97 So Panasonic ranks at the top in terms of bringing out new models, I guess we should be thankful they're at least doing something.

Maybe this was the real reason why the Panasonic G97 got released: https://dslrbodies.com/newsviews-2/remember-this-date-december.html "all [devices] sold in the EU will have to be equipped with a USB Type-C charging port." If Panasonic didn't add USB-C they could no longer sell their cameras. They could keep on selling the G9 mk2 / GH6 / GH7, as they're new enough to already include USB-C. But the G95? It lacks USB-C. Thus Panasonic was faced with an issue: either they ditch completely the entry level models, and lack having a feeeder model to bring in new blood, or they do a minor update to include USB-C (and some other little stuff).

They haven't stopped making DSLRs yet. I'd give it only slightly better than 50/50 odds that a Nikon D7 will be released. The Nikon D6 came out in 2020 so we're a little bit overdue for a D7 currently, but we can cut it some slack and not fully count the covid era years. But the Nikon flagships are meant to be in sync with the Olympic cycles, so if we don't see one in 2024, does that mean we wait until 2028? They couldn't do a midcycle release?? I highly doubt that both the D850 & D780 will get updated, but I'll give it better than 50/50 odds that one of them will be updated. (the D850 is crazy overdue for an update) Probably the D780 but with some D850 features, they'll bring that out as a middle ground camera that is an update that sits between the D7x0 and the D8x0 series. A bit like what happened with the D90/D300, rather than do an update for both of them, then instead Nikon released the D7000 as a single update to replace both of them. While on the topic of DX cameras, I'll predict we'll never again see a new DX DSLR from Nikon (or Canon for that matter). Maaaybe there is a wild card chance we see something like a Nikon D7600. But I doubt it. Heck, releasing a Nikon D3600 produced in the most obnoxiously cost-cutting cheap manner possible (Nikon never made their equivalent camera to Canon's EOS 4000D) is more likely than a D7600 I'm afraid. So that's what I'm predicting: 1) sometime in the next year or three, then a camera that's a replacement for both the D780 and D850 will come out. Probably with the a7 mk4 33MP sensor. That's almost identical resolution to the OG D800, so kinda enough resolution to keep many D8x0 series users happen, while also being a good choice for a sensor for a D7x0 series camera. 2) maybe the Nikon D7 will come out in time for the 2028 Olympics (the 111th year of Nikon's existence!), and will be Nikon's last ever flagship DSLR. (there is a possibility they might buck tradition, and not sync it up with an Olympics cycle? But I doubt it) 3) maybe a surprise wild card, such as D7600 or D3600 or Df mk2, but I truly would be very surprised if any of these happened. 4) if Nikon DSLRs users are very very lucky, then in the early 2030's we'll see the truly last last ever DSLR released: the update to whatever was the camera released in my #1 prediction. 5) there is a very good chance the "updates" might just be a very very mild update, such as adding USB-C to a camera (like was the case with today's Panasonic G97 announcement), so rather than seeing a true D790 release (with a new sensor), it's more like a "D780s" update instead (such as the upgrade from a D300 to a D300s was). So all in all, I'm predicting one or two more DSLR releases from Nikon, maaaybe three more releases from Nikon. Almost dead zero chance there will be four+ more DSLRs releases from Nikon before the heat death of the univerrse. As for Canon, I predict they're going to more aggressively ditch their EF mount, they'll release half as many new DSLRs as Nikon will be releasing. Or even less. Pentax is going to keep on doing whatever Pentax is doing. (I was surprised to learn that the new Pentax KF camera was released as recently as 2023!) Sony will never ever again release an A Mount camera. (α99 II / α68 / α77 II all got discontinued in 2021)

This seems like only a very modest update from the ancient Panasonic G85 that was released way back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth in 2016? It's a tough spot they're in I suppose, because on one hand people are complaining about how expensive cameras are, and the lack of low end models. But then when a camera gets released which fits into this category (US$850 with the kit lens) then people hate upon it for being so boring and lacklustre. I guess the big problem is you can too easily just get a second GH5 or G9 instead at this price point. But if Panasonic went any cheaper they'd be making a loss on the G97?! Why though can't Panasonic at least offer 10bit internal recording? As after all the old GH5 & G9 can do it, which are the main secondhand competitors vs buying a G97 new.

Panasonic are big in the world of telephones: https://shop.panasonic.com/pages/telephones And they used to make lots of smartphones, but haven't in quite a while: https://www.gsmarena.com/panasonic-phones-6.php Anyway, I just gave Samsung as another example because they're a company like Panasonic who have a massive range of consumer electronics (such as TVs, or toasters, or microwaves, or whatever) and have (or used to have) mirrorless cameras as well. Makes it harder to get new blood in. If you don't see "your heros" (be it the sports photographers at F1 or the Olympics, or the BTS from your favorite indie fimmaker, or the lifesystle photographer on social media, or whoever) using a particular brand at all, then it's harder to see yourself buying that "unknown" brand yourself. Yes, during the analog days then camera body releases were not released as furiously fast and frantic as we experienced it during the late 1990's and 2000's and early/mid 2010's.

Panasonic S1R + leather body case / grip + Leica badge & red dot from Aliexpress/eBay + glue = "Leica camera"? 😉 True. Those CN-E lens simply "look professional" with their cine design. Even though CN-E are kinda "budget" cine lens. A person could even be shooting on even cheaper DZOFilm VESPID lenses and you'll get that better reaction (with non-gear nerds) than if you're shooting on far more expensive Leica M glass / Canon L Series / Nikkor Gold Ring / Sony G Master / etc lens. Average people don't recognize brands but they do recognize "that's not a normal still photography lens". Bingo, and just like they won't be able to tell apart Sony cameras, they can't tell apart generations of ARRI or RED either. Having a RED Scarlet X will impress a normie just as much as a RED Komodo X or even a RED V-RAPTOR XL. True, a normie in the arts scenes will be far more likely to recoginize the Leica brand name even though the rest of their photographic knowledge will be quite similar to the average normie (i.e. won't even know what an f-stop is). So true, when it comes to the commercial aspects of filmmaking, then it's pretty hard to choose anything else than a Sony FS7 / FX6 / FX9 from a purely business perspective. They're the in demand swiss army knife of video productions. And only if you're much higher end and/or more niche, then does anything else become easily much more compelling. I think the true screw up was the lack of cooperation/coordination (worse than that... they were enemies!) between the consumer and the professional sides of the business. After the smash hit of the GH4 that was the perfect timing to release the "Panasonic AF200" (an updated AF100, but with the guts of a GH4 inside it, rather than a GH1 inside it like the Af100 was, which by the time the GH4 launched then the AF100 was very old) Imagine how good an EVA1 MFT or DVX200 MFT could have been! Would've made the loooong wait for a GH6 much less traumatic. (especially if there were even updates from the pro division, such as an EVA2 MFT or DVX300 MFT or AF300) Or even if they were simply speedier/better in the release of their box style cameras, what if the Panasonic BGH1 got released immediately when the GH4 was (or say only six months after?), and imagine if it had a zero delay SDI output and 10bit internal. Sure it would at such a point have had the GH4 sensor, not the GH5 sensor, but it would have served as a very appealing upgrade option for the GH4 owners, while they wait for a GH5. Then "the Panasonic BGH2" (with the GH5 sensor), could have / should have given us built in NDs.

I feel we've been experiencing a revolution in optics already because of two major changes: 1) much lower production costs in China. They could take classic designs and produce them for a fraction of the cost of what companies in Japan / Germany / Switzerland / Korea / USA / etc were doing it for. 2) computer aided designs. In the past to produce new lens designs it relied heavily upon having deep intuitive knowledge of their craftsmen stretching back over decades of hard-won experience, and development would be a slow / expensive process of making physical prototypes then seeing and measuring the results. But now you can quickly iterate through designs on a computer, and model the results, greatly reducing the relience upon a craftsman's intuition and the need for making many prototypes. Instead you can just explore and check out the results via the computer. (of course having skilled optical designers & making prototypes still matters, but you can get away with much less of this, not having to rely so heavily upon it) This results in both more cheaply designed lenses but also more lens options as well. (such as all of the innovative designs being made by Laowa Lenses, I don't think that could have happened in the pre-computer era) The Nikon D500 too! Technically the first ever DSLR camera that does 4K. (well, first equal, with the Nikon D5. And not count the 1D C because that's a cine camera, and not count the GH4 because that's technically not a DSLR) Also the Nikon D5200 is worth a mention. I purchased the D5200 largely because of your great review of it on EOSHD. If you wished to ignore 4K (which a decade ago, a case could easily be argued for that) then I reckon the Nikon D5200 was a more appealing camera than any of the 1080 cameras (at anywhere vaguely near that price point) from Panasonic / Canon / Pentax / Samsung / Olympus / Sony. Nikon did better at videography than most other people wish to give them credit for. If only the professional division wasn't feuding with the consumer division, and had given us a pro camera with MFT (the "AF200"? the DVX200 or EVA1 with a MFT mount?!) then the slow development of the GH6 wouldn't have mattered half as much. The MFT ecosystem has a large appeal to a couple of key categories: 1) birding photographers / casual sports photographers. People who want massive telephoto reach, but without the usual financial costs or massive weight penalties that comes with. Combos such as Panasonic G9 + Panasonic 50-200mm f2.8-4 (or the Panasonic 100-400mm f/4-6.3!) is impossible the duplicate for the same low cost / low weight in the FF world. 2) older photographers / travel photographers, they still want "a serious setup" with all the buttons & dials plus lens options that their old DSLR setups had. But they no longer have the strength / space for it. The likes of say an Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV with say a couple of primes + the classic trio of f2.8 zooms gives them that set up in a far more compact / lighter setup than a FF camera package. Making only X100 / LX100 products would alienate those customers just as much (or even more!!) as making a G100 or S9 alienates us filmmakers. I don't think Sony launched E Mount with the fully planned-out intention for it to be a FE mount, with support for FF. Rather they launched their mirrorless cameras, realized they're becoming very popular, and that full frame DSLR cameras are becoming very popular too (remember, when E Mount was launched then the Nikon D3 series of cameras were the only Nikon FX DSLRs that existed!!) thus they attempted to shoehorn their new FF cameras into their E Mount. (which luckily they could just manage to do! Unlike Canon/Nikon/Samsung, who were out of luck with being able to ever do this for their first generation mirrorless mounts) Personally I can't be too harshly critical of executives in the 2000's for failing to predict that their new range of mirrorless they were in early product development for would one day need to support FF sensors. As who would have predicted in the 2000's that there would be so soon dirt cheap FF DSLRs such as the Nikon D600 or immensely popular affordable FF DSLRs such as the Nikon D750? When Z / L / RF mounts launched, they had the benefit of hindsight, and the ability to learn from past mistakes, thus they were developed from Day 1 with the ability to support FF sensors. I don't think it's necessarily an obvious fatal mistake to support both MFT and L Mounts because they're two full stop sizes apart. Just like X mount and GFX mount, two stops apart. They're far enough apart, they can exist in their own niches. Doing say EOS-M and RF would however be a fatal mistake, they're too close to each other, and one of them has to die and disappear. (in this case, EOS-M) Because of the infamous infighting between the pro vs consumer divisons 😞 Samsung?

Because the Olympus 17mm 1:2.8 pancake had already came out 3yrs earlier? (and that wasn't even the only other pancake for the system either) With the magical benefit of hindsight I think Panasonic should have done or more of these three things: 1) released that f8 pancake several weeks/months after the S9, that way if it flops it doesn't drag them both down 2) released a more genuinely useful/appealing pancake (that's AF, and at least f4 or faster) before the 26mm f8 (or at the latest, no later than simultaneously with the 26mm f8 lens) 3) released the f8 at the same time as the S9 but make it very very clear in all the marketing material that this is a FREE lens for everyone who pre-orders the S9 (it's so much hard to complain against what is free??) True, perhaps if they'd only marketed it towards Gen Z / Gen Alpha social media influencers and had hidden it away from every photographer/filmmaker on the planet, then the launch would have gone fine? But it's 2024, it's nearly impossible for the photographer/filmmaker influencers to not also notice the Panaosnic S9 launch (heck, many of them even got invited to the launch!!) and to be commenting on the S9 from the photographer/filmmaker perspective as well. I'm kinda doing this. I've got a NZD$199 phone. (about US$115) And have put together bare bones very cheap and compact Fujfilm camera package. But it's still a total setup that's more expensive than your typical flagship smartphone. (and I've only got it so "cheap" thanks to my nerdy knowledge of what options exist + my relentless bargain hunting) And it's much more bulky. (even though Fujifilm allows you to go quite compact, more so than if I was going FF) Using the fujifilm app (or waiting until I get home, then using the PC) is also far less convenient than simply shooting with the smartphone's camera. And in 2024 it's all about convenience for people. So unless you're a camera nerd like us, it's hard to go for the compact / affordable camera package + cheap phone vs flagship smartphone. (plus a flagship smartphone gives you non-photography benefits, for instance all of your mobile apps will be snappier) Unless you're meaning a combo such as say a cheap phone with a Panasonic LUMIX LX10 or RX100 III / IV or similar-ish? That is much more portable, and thus arguably a more attractive option. However I'd say 95%+ of casual users don't see the difference between a LX10/RX100 photo and a flagship smartphone's photo. The gap between the "large sensor" P&S cameras and flagship smartphones has gotten a lot smaller. So then you're left with the next step up to at least MFT / APS-C sized cameras and a set of lenses, which means a big leap in size, and a drop in portability / convenience. Still, the LX10/RX100 option does have some appeal, and I might get this as well before I move overseas.