noone

Or maybe he asked in light of the OTHER recent camera specifically aimed at vloggers? You seem to dismiss the ZV1 but its crop is smaller WITH IS high than the G100 with it OFF in 4k and the same in IS high as the G100 in standard for 1080. Care to list the bitrates in your next post? 1 inch sensors SHOULD compete more closely with phones (well not really) but in this case it betters the G100 in many ways and THAT is why it is a fail to me. Oh and back to your saying it was the successor to the GM1 and GM5, (which Panasonic said isn't) this camera is LARGER than the ZV1 while both the GM1 and GM5 are SMALLER (without a lens) than the ZV1 . Put it this way, I have an old Canon G10 high end P&S and it is not really pants pocketable (it will fit but with a large lump) and the G100 is larger in every dimension without a lens than it while the ZV1 as well as the GM1 and GM5 without lens WILL fit.

Just regards this thread and Olympus (I am out of the other stuff in this thread), what have we learned that we didn't know ten pages ago? Olympus does not think the camera division is profitable (and it has made very few profits in the last decade ...see Andrews separate thread)...What else does there need to be! Sony used to be the largest shareholder in Olympus but sold a large chunk of their shares a few years ago and sold the 5% they kept in 2019 (did they KNOW something?)....they will still lose if Olympus falls as that means one less sensor customer

What focal length on the kit lens works best for you? Once you decide that, I would just get the closest prime in your price range to that.

Oh I read it, I just think you are full of shit! I am out of this.

Of course it is how it works. Even going to a site like AliBaba in China to buy small numbers of stuff the companies quote different prices for different order sizes. You really do not think Sony is going to sell sensors cheaper to companies who buy larger orders? That Oly would have got a better rate when they sold (made) many more cameras a few years ago? Look at cars? You never heard of fleet discounts? I give up.

Try this... think of a simple product, any product you can have made locally. Ring them up and ask for a quote for ONE, then a quote for 500 and then a quote for 15000. By your logic they will all be the same but I am betting it will be very different for each. Now a modern AF camera is a lot more complex and is made up of many parts and a lot of those parts are made by other companies. Olympus rings up Sony Semi Conductor and orders 200,000 20mp M43 sensors they are going to get a much better price per unit than if they just order 50,000 and the same thing will apply to all the other parts makers. As a result, a camera made with a run of 200,000 is going to be cheaper per camera to make than one made in a run of 50,000 even if the company makes the same profit per camera (though I would think they would want a larger profit per unit on smaller runs to justify making them). They are not going to make a larger run than they think they can sell.

I find it interesting that Canon makes a lot more cameras THEY call "video" cameras (and including several for professional use) than they call "cinema"....I wonder why that is and what anyone could possibly want with a non cinema camera that is no good for stills and is called "professional" with a tiny much smaller than m43 sensor ? On Canon Australia's site, they have 19 listed in their "video" camera section and 9 listed in their "cinema" camera section. Sure some of the video ones are consumer but many are not and equally, 2 of the 9 cinema cameras are the HD only high sensitivity cameras that I have never heard of anyone actually using (though I am sure they do).

Plenty of people use multiple formats and like to use the same lenses on both and a focal reducer just gives more choice. You can have adapters with AF that are focal reducers and others that are not..That was one of the things I love about my Canon lenses. When I had my GX7 and Kipon AF adapter I could use lenses like the Canon 135 f2 on my FF Sony and my GX7 (I even managed to use it on a Canon APSC DSLR from time to time)...All for DIFFERENT looks. I wanted a focal reducer for m43 too but just never got around to it (other than a really really cheap and horrid "light cannon" originally a focal reducer but sold as a "soft focus adapter" by the time I got it...the one bit of M43 kit I still have). Sure SOME are trying for a "look" with M43 and focal reducers but not all are and probably not that many as a percentage of GH5 owners (would love to see some evidence either way). My nephew uses a GH5 for his business with native lenses only I am sure he is not alone. He is not using it to produce movies for the big screen.

Yes! On a lower level, just paid $60 Australian for an adapter from China that if it was for for something more common would have cost me less than $10 including postage (and has done in the past). They charge the extra in part because they can but in part because it is produced in smaller runs and more expensive to make.

Plenty of people use the GH5 for ITS look and NOT to compare it with the look of something else. I am glad you have started contributing opinions not as facts.

I think the Olympus flagship OM1 cameras would have been great with an APSC sensor. Oh well, some great bargains will soon be available.

M43 is DIFFERENT it is not the same and nor should it be. Just like with film, different sizes existed, they existed for reasons. A mini is an excellent vehicle but it is not a truck.

If the GH5 was bad, it would not be selling/have sold as well as it did/does. Many reviewers used it as the camera they shot reviews of OTHER cameras on (The FF Panasonics are being used now by many though I think some use the GH5 still). It is a hybrid camera and lots use it as such though for many it is a video camera for professional use. We all have opinions but when people say others OPINIONS are wrong and then argue is when the discussion derailed. There is a place for M43 just as there is for all sensor sizes. I do not currently have an M43 camera but my main love is low light shooting and it is not as good for that but I have been happy with the M43 cameras i have had as second cameras. I still want to get a cheap OM1 first version for its PDAF to try with my late dads 2 four thirds lenses (though they might not work or be limited since they both seem to have known issues the lenses developed) Regards M43 VS FF, I prefer FF but that is mainly as a stills shooter because there are things I can do that are just not possible with M43 or at least far far easier to do, at least as things stand. Video and I am happy enough wth my A7s for my limited needs and now adding a Rx100 iv as my pocket camera I may not need anything else for a while. I think there are focal lengths (or lenses) that suit different formats better than others for specific subjects ....IE some will be suited by M43, others by FF ...I want to test this out more and I may well be wrong but it is just a feeling I have after looking at particular...It is hard to describe what i mean..In any case, long live M43, long live FF!

Oh and there is a link to you no where there to. Not bad for a first post. Also might be a good thing it was not compared to some of the one inch cameras. Even in 1080, the Panasonic does 28mbps while the ZV1 does up to 100.

Two things. A) It is NOT aimed ONLY at entry level vloggers (they say that in that entry level users can use it also)....Nah, it is just aimed at vloggers generally. B) It is not an updated anything, it is totally new and THEY are saying it is not an update. I think If they had quietly put out the camera saying look what we made from out spare parts bin and oh, we are trialing a new audio system, have at it and put it out at a cheaper price, sure it would make sense but every video from them specifically calls it a vlogging camera. The camera is ok for a limited market but NOT the one they are flogging it to.

I used to buy every magazine religiously (I probably could have got myself a lovely bit of kit with all the money i spent on them). I have got about five in the last four years including two in the last month. I stsrted looking at them at the library but they do not stock them anymore either. Looking on line for articles on the ancient Tokina 60-120 2.8 I got myself recently, I came across some magazines from all those years ago in PDF form and they were no different to magazines now except they had zillions more ads from many companies (often had pages of listings for cameras and lenses etc from mail order stores). I used to buy those sort of magazines and I kinda wish that sort of thing still existed though I would never go back to film and it is a uch better time to be alive and interested in photo/video gear.

They also use Lumix on their cheap little point and shoots. I have one that is my underwater/waterproof camera though image quality is far worse than even some older phones (video is only 720p) and another that would have been quite expensive (almost nothing for me and I still overpaid) with a Leica branded lens and lots of controls but its image quality is not anything that I like and video is early full HD

I agree, it is not necessarily (though how can you tell what is and isn't) corrupt and that IS how it works and probably always has. In addition to the Fuji ad and article there are ads from Sony, Nikon, DJI and Camera house (one of very few remaining camera store chains in Australia though many of their stores have closed)...Also a Sony "special promotion" (Sony sponsored content?) and a SanDisk special promotion. Without those ads, the magazine would not exist so I take them as they are.

Still happens in the few remaining camera magazines. June issue of Australian photography has a full page ad for the Fuji X100V on page 19 and on pages 54-57 is a review of the camera (not singling out Fuji, it was just their turn). Of course I actually think that is a very nice camera.

The Sony Minolta thing is VASTLY different to Oly selling their imaging division. I believe Minolta was a viable company that lost a big lawsuit over patents and was otherwise a major player in the market at time that all things photo was at or nearing its heights while Olympus IMAGING is a part of a company that has been losing money for years (and lots of it) and not too long after a scandal where they tried to hide a BILLION dollar loss over a decade. I HOPE I am wrong but I would not be surprised if after this goes trough, in a couple of years the Olympus "flagship" camera was an E-PL23 with a Japan only menu (would you like a filter with that?).

This! The other thing is posting OPINIONS as fact ( and arguing with people over OPINIONS who have a different opinion?). If I say something as fact that is clearly wrong, then i expect to be told but my opinion is based on what i see and read and how many times i have gone around the sun using a wide variety of photo equipment for decades. It also helps if people can back up the things they say they are or do. I know squat about video so I am here to learn the little bits I want Regards the GH5, plenty of people are doing just fine with a GH5, not a camera for me but my nephew is happy using it to earn a large part of his living. here comes an opinion....I think Olympus just could not handle money in the way a western country company would. They have been plagued by scandals (geez they hid a BILLION dollar loss for years not so long ago) and as Thom Hogan says, Japanese law and customs made it difficult for them to do anything to stem the flow of bleeding money now.

Does not always work that way, some times it does. The FF Sony 55 1. and 5 1.8 both have a T stop of 1.8 on the Sony FF cameras (might be a bit of correction in camera there or very little loss and it is just rounded up to 1.8) and against that a lens like the Olympus 25 1.2 ALSO has a T stop of 1.8 on am EM 1.2 so it will depend on individual lenses and cameras.

Your OPINION is noted, I disagree and as far as I am concerned YOU have shown zero common sense and zero evidence. You SAY you are a colourist but you come across as a angry kid in his mums basement and until I see evidence otherwise, I will be thinking of you as such. As for Oly not making a profit on imaging? You tell me the last year they did? Certainly not for the last three years. I wish they had of (they would not be in the mess they are in otherwise).

Smart phones are not great sensor wise but it is the other stuff that is making them better. Some of the recent high end smart phones are actually very good in low light (comparatively). Longer lenses for them are where the next advance will come and when it does, that will be another batch of real cameras rendered obsolete. They are using folded optics and multiple cameras to advance as well as software.. FF cameras will never be as small as smaller sensor cameras in general but geez the original A7 trio are smaller and lighter than many APSC and some M43 cameras and SOME FF lenses are tiny. (others really are huge for what they are). I actually hope real cameras hang on forever and again, I probably use a phone with a camera even less than anyone here but I see lots of older photographers giving up heavier stuff and going to M43 but more increasing to phones

What case study have you got to say i am wrong? OF course if something is made in smaller numbers it will cost more. R&D costs to the companies are not going to get cheaper (unless they cut back) and the cost per unit will have to be more expensive to pay for it. Same with the equipment to make it, it has to pay its way. Olympus has been selling plenty of cameras but they have not made a profit very often in the last decade. As to the market shrinking, ten percent was just a figure for argument stake. Nobody knows what it will shrink to but the trend is down, nothing but down and as phones get better and people who grew up with real cameras gets older and weaker, demand will diminish further. I just went to a major store that includes cameras as part of its range to get a SD card and they are still selling the RX100 FIRST version new and for silly money with a version iii also for more than it is worth and a recent model for more than many DSLRs. For most people a phone will do as good a job at photos and video now for what they want as well as a lot more things and for less money.