IronFilm

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 

Yeah I've lusted after the 100 since day one. I just saw one sell for below $2k. 
The 100s is in my budget and size and for travel I could really use the savings in weight and extra space in the bag. Ideally I would save up for the 100ii and at around $5,000 I could make that work. For now a 100s for $2,000 would be a nice intro into the system and allow me to start playing with all this vintage glass. Yeah, maybe not the same build quality as the original with better design and EVF. I'll keep an eye out for a deal. 
Bidding on an S1R for below $1,000 at the moment, Talking to a local chap for an SL2 at $2,000 and keeping an eye out for a steal on a GFX 100/s. Fun Times...!!! At least one of these high MP monsters will be under the tree soon.

The GFX100 is the most misunderstood camera on the market.
It's a full frame mirrorless camera, which just so happens to have an even larger sensor and the highest resolution of any mirrorless camera.
In the full frame mode it is 60mp, like an a7r V.
In the medium format mode, it is more like full frame+ rather than real medium format like a Hasselblad film camera, so the full frame lenses still work.
Had it been an even larger sensor or a reflex camera with a mirror, of course you'd need to get the native lenses but really you don't.
So that brings the cost down massively and opens up the creative possibilities more than any other camera I know.
Also what people don't understand is that the smaller GFX 100S is a significantly cost cut version, which doesn't feel anywhere near as good.
The OG GFX100 has the best build quality and ergonomics of any mirrorless camera, full stop. The size isn't too bad, and neither is weight a problem. It's closer to a Nikon Z9 than a RED.
I also really like the top display and gunmetal blue, and the detachable viewfinder which the GFX 100S doesn't have.
It becomes completely flat on top without it, which is somehow quite charming and brings the profile down.
With it, the EVF is one of the best on the market - big, detailed, fast.
With superb IBIS and on-sensor phase-detect AF it has all the bells and whistles.
You put a humdrum 50 dollar M42 lens on there and it looks like a fucking Noctilux.
And this is the part I don't understand - the lack of awareness for that, and the massive depreciation as if nobody wants it. This was a $10,000 camera when it came out, and it came out in the modern era not in the fucking 90s!
At half that price apparently it didn't really sell, so second hand prices kept going down and down.
Now it is less than the price of a Z6 III!
It makes that camera feel like a complete toy.

By advice would be to dump L-mount and get the GFX 100 with the Fringer EF adapter and Leica M adapter for GFX. It's glorious. The extra pizazz it brings to old SLR lenses when you find a good match, the XPan style wide aspect ratio mode, the massive sensor, the really good 10bit 4K, and the best build quality I have ever had the pleasure of, way better than the SL3 with it's terrible screen construction and dodgy on/off button (couldn't even get that right!)
As an added bonus... the phase-detect AF works REALLY well with the Fringer EF adapter and the 50mm F1.4, which is hardly an expensive Canon lens, doesn't have significant vignetting on the larger GFX format sensor.

I considered both for my needs and in the end went for something ‘in the middle’, the A7RV. And I can’t really fault it.
It’s a much better piece of kit than the A7CR (better lens platform, vastly better rear screen, 2 card slots…) and not far off the 100mp sensor of the Fuji whilst being more compact and offering far more lens options, never mind the far superior AF.
For travel, I’d say its case goes up even further based on the size and weight of the body and the lenses.
I know one thing based on my most recent trip to Paris and that is I would not go out on any serious urban or landscape shoot without my 70-180 again.
I have mine with the Tamron f2.8 trio of; 20-40, 28-75, 70-180 and when you also factor in one click switch to 26mp crop mode, the focal range and sheer quality of output from such a compact small bag set up, is bonkers.
And cost-wise, all available on the used market at pretty decent prices. I think you could score the lot for around 5k not including anything you might sell to help fund it.
Japan is No.1 on my bucket list. I would even need to think about what I’d take because it would be this body and 3 lens set up with one small bag.

Hey, I think all the camera makers would fight to keep them or get them back. They've kept the whole industry afloat helping them afford the high-end stuff.
Honestly when you see the crap Chinese cameras on Amazon, all the Japanese cameras are better, regardless make or year- all of them. I actually feel really bad for the people that get those "48MP" cameras with only a cellphone sensor and no optical zoom. My Dad got one before he died and when he purchased it, he seemed quite happy. He probably felt different or didn't know better soon after. I don't know why Amazon allows that stuff that is clearly filled with false advertising.

Basic bitches.

Exactly.
When I overhear people trying out/discussing/buying cameras in stores and at local camera shows, my impression is that taking still photos is the most important reason for buying a camera. Video hardly gets mentioned - it's a secondary 'nice to have, just in case' feature, not the main reason for buying what is perceived as a 'stills' camera (mostly because MILCs still look like traditional 35mm film cameras, I guess).
What sells reasonably well for camera manufacturers is probably quite different to what interests people on this video-orientated forum (I know that's the case for me).

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.

Exactly. You got a great deal, for sure. I'm sure you'll enjoy the content made with it. It has so many features and such a nice image. I've been using one for live streaming with a Chinon 50mm f/1.9- works great!

While waiting for new Lumix stuff I’ve decided to enjoy how cheap 2020 technology is getting…
 
My $535 original S5 arrived from The Yahoo Japan Auction this week and I’m finally getting to put my Minolta AF set of lenses to good use with a new adapter. These lenses are still under most people’s radar because of the autofocus but they are a steal for the optics. The end days of Minolta and A mount so right before Sony bought them and used a lot of their lens designs on the first Alpha bodies.
 
The set of 
20 f/2.8, 28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 and 100 f/2
rival the Canon FD’s for a fraction of the cost. The 35mm actually gets sold up to $1,500 these days because the rehoused FD’s had no 1.4 option. You can find it for under $500 if you are patient however. 
so $535 for the camera and $250 for a Ninja V and I’ve got 5.89k ProRes raw, 3.5k Anamorphic and the original S5 processor and nice organic sensor unlike the newer S5ii Not bad…
Now to find an S1R for under $1k that’s not a scam… 
 

S1H level of build quality as a minimum including damped shutter button.
Rear screen a la S1H.
High res rear screen, unlike the S5ii which is ‘average’.
Better AF than the S5ii which is ‘decent’ but no more than that.
Full 6k 50/60p.
60mp for stills for both detail and ability to crop.
Available March 2025 latest.
S2H and S2R or one single camera, I don’t mind but they would have my money instantly. Rather than Nikon or Sony who almost certainly otherwise will.
Bonuses, but not deal-breakers for me would be:
Internal raw
Some kind of ‘colour by Arri’ match up like Nikon/RED. That would really put LUMIX on the filmmakers map at least.
Options that aren’t just fucking black! I mean I probably would go with black when it came to it, but a series of classy colours would give the thing more appeal to a wider demographic simply by having the option. But keep the colours the same as other models such as the S9 etc so folks can match their kit.
 

https://leicarumors.com/2024/10/03/new-leica-sl3-s-camera-rumored-to-be-announced-in-a-few-months.aspx/amp/
 
New SL3-S rumored. This better not be a rebadged S5ii. Really strange that we haven’t heard about any of the Lumix equivalents. 

The extra features on the S5iiX are awesome. Recording to SSD is a breeze and ProRes without needing an external recorder is really nice. Not everyone needs that so it’s nice that it’s a slight upgrade for a nominal fee. I wouldn’t call it nickel and diming though. If anything it probably just covers the licensing fees LOL. 

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)
 

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). 
 

I’m torn as well between both of these as a little third camera for travel, street and interviews. Found a black X-M5 on a Japanese open box model for $800 with a 10% off coupon last week but decided to wait a bit. 
 
X-M5 Rigged up with a Ninja V that 6.2k open gate prores raw would be great for music videos and short films. Once rigged up the IBIS would be less of an issue. S9 does have the better IBIS and AF but no external raw if that matters to you. 422 10 bit might be enough for you. Also few to no speedboosters for Panasonic L mount but most just deal with the 1.5x crop on 60p. There’s a couple options for the Fuji X mount for speedboosters so that could be fun. 

I'm in the same boat. Not changing. I don't see any reason to.
As I said earlier, I believe the release of the G97 basically puts a nail in the coffin of a mid-ranged M43 camera for at least 2 years. They've just spent their time coming out with a G97; they aren't going to get people to buy that only to come out immediately after with an upgrade.
I don't think it had in that they've been releasing a GH line camera every 1 to 2 years since 2009, if you count the GH5s as a "real" GH camera.
After reading all of what people are complaining about, I guess Panasonic should just focus on hardware, not firmware. Release it and forget it, right (à la Sony)? Rather, Panasonic has made meaningful efforts in firmware fixes. The S5ii when it was released is not the same camera as the current one. Not many of us are talking about that. Really, people have their ass chapped because there's no high-end production camera (something I don't care about). Still, I'd love to know exactly how you think the features will be that much better than the current models for pros. Better build? 12k, 8k? 4k 120fps? 32bit float? Internal RAW? Arri log? Which will most disappoint if it's not there? I get the feeling people just want GH7-level features in a FF body? I think we can agree that Arri-anything won't be in it.

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)
 

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)
 

Which is why I mentioned Z6 III. For the R5, if you're comparing used prices, then I'll revise to "I won't complain about Panasonic cameras until Sony, Nikon, and Canon all have real next-gen FF sensors in $900 used bodies"
The Nikon Z6 came out in 2018, and the S1 in 2019. Z6 III released this year, so if a Panasonic camera comes out with a similar sensor, then next year will have the same latency in terms of time-to-new-sensor.

The newly announced G97 could be understood as there will not be another sub $1000 camera for another 2 years. At least, I understand it as that. It sounds just like the G100D, a camera that won't be replaced anytime soon IMO, probably another year, if ever.

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).

.. Z9 just got the new firmware bringing shutter angle and some WFM & zebra enhancements:
 
..these will surely trickle down to Z8, Z6iii. So another plus point for Z mount!