ac6000cw

IIRC, around the time of the GH6 release (18 months ago), there was live stream/press discussion with some senior Panasonic people, where one of them basically said that including PDAF hardware on the sensor would have delayed the sensor development too much (for the GH6 timescale). So my take on it is the sensor in the G9ii is effectively the 'fully developed' version of it, and the GH6 has an intermediate version without the PDAF hardware capability. I think it would have been commercially crazy to not launch the GH6 with PDAF if they could have - they'd have sold more in the intervening months at higher street prices. We'll have to wait and see, but I think there just has to be a GH6ii or GH7 soon.

I've just watched/listened to the PetaPixel (Chris and Jordan) and Geeky Nerdy Techy YouTube reviews, and both of them reported that at room temperature anything below 4k120/4k100p mode recorded until the battery died (which I think for 4k60p was around 1h 20m - 1h 30m). 4k120p overheated after about 25-30 minutes. So pretty good I think. Interestingly Jordan said the G9ii might become his favourite everyday video camera - it would be a bit ironic if the G9ii turns out to be a serious GH6 killer, despite being supposedly aimed at stills shooters... Both reviews said the automatic (versus manual on the GH6) 'dynamic range boost' function works well, and also the IBIS is extremely good (as in 'best we've ever used').

One thing I am a bit surprised at is not upgrading the viewfinder - it's the same 3.68M dots resolution as it's predecessor, whereas the OM-1 has a (really nice to use) 5.76M dot panel. I also have to agree with dpReview's comment:

Initial review and specs on dpReview - https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dc-g9-ii-initial-review-the-g9-series-matures

Yes - most of the camera manuals I have say something like 'recording times may be reduced in high ambient temperatures'. I wonder if some of this is because the R5 situation bought the general issue to the attention of a lot more people (as it was discussed ad-nauseum at the time)? Consequentially influencers & reviewers now have it on their 'must test it and/or say something about it' list - and of course they tend to choose the most computationally demanding video modes to test overheating, rather than the modes that probably 95% of users might choose day-to-day. I assume it's just that making the camera smaller and lighter (combined with a long enough features list) probably sells more product than putting a fan in it (to make it more appealing to a minority of video-orientated customers). I know a reasonable number of people who have and use reasonably 'serious' cameras, but mention to them that I use mine a lot for video and the reaction is often almost 'what's video' or that they have no real interest in shooting it... I'm sure the design engineers could fix the thermal issues, but if that would make it noticeably larger and more expensive they probably get overruled by the product management & marketing side of the company (unless it's a hybrid camera that's very much aimed at video users, e.g. like the GHx, S5iix and S1H). Even the (original) G9 has a 10 minute 4k60p limit whereas it's very close relative the GH5 has much longer record times...

...Or even put IBIS and PDAF in a version of the G100... (but the GX80/GX9/LX100 are much better looking cameras from a style point-of-view). If Sony can sell small, expensive and thermally-compromised cameras I'm sure Panasonic could if they had the right product...

As the G9ii looks like it's using a version of the GH6 25Mp sensor with PDAF added, a GH6ii/GH7 is probably not far away... As an OM-1, G9 and GX80 owner, I'm not really interested in the G9ii, but a GX80/GX9/EM5/OM5 size camera with mic jack and the 25Mp PDAF sensor inside would be very interesting!

Now released: A7C ii - https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7c-ii-initial-review-not-so-small-improvements A7CR - https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7cr-initial-review-high-resolution-in-a-small-package Sony certainly seems keen on filling every niche they can with a camera...

If Premiere supports VST audio plugins, could you use a delay plugin to time-shift one of the audio clips to fix the phasing issue, instead of shifting it directly on the timeline? Another thought is that there are auto-align/auto-phasing VST plugins around, designed specifically to deal with multi-mic phasing issues in a multi-track mix e.g. like this one from Melda - https://www.meldaproduction.com/MAutoAlign (Note I've never used that particular plugin, but I use other Melda plugins so I happen to know it exists). Alternatively (but more work initially) could you fix the phasing issues as you do already, then export the fixed & mixed audio for the clip to a WAV file, then put it onto the timeline to replace the original audio for the clip (then group it back with the video)?

I've worn varifocals (every day) for longer than I can remember - at least 10 years. As MrSMW said, the first time you wear them it takes a few days - at least - to adapt to them (and some people don't like/can't adapt to them). Personally I really like them and wouldn't have anything else now. I always buy the varifocal lenses with the largest usable lens areas (near, mid, far) the optician offers - it makes a big difference to the usability. They are often the most expensive but for something I use all day, every day I think it's worth it. Much better to spend the money on the lenses than expensive fancy frames, IMHO. It's like buying pro-grade camera zoom lenses versus kit zooms - the performance is less compromised. Like MrSMW, I use the Specsavers chain in the UK - this is their guide to varifocals - https://www.specsavers.co.uk/glasses/glasses-lenses/varifocals (I use their 'Tailor-made' lenses) Note it's more critical for varifocal lenses to be positioned correctly in relation to the eye pupil than single-vision lenses, so make sure the optician adjusts the frames to suit you when you get them.

Yes, I usually do that just to get decent looking 1080p when it's played, irrespective of the original source material. In case anyone is interested, this is an example FFmpeg command line to process 4:3 PAL DV into 1440x1080p H.264 at 20Mbps using the Intel QSV encoder (command should be all on one line, input=PAL_DV.avi, output=PAL_DV_1080p.mp4): ffmpeg.exe -i PAL_DV.avi -vf estdif,scale=1440x1080:flags=lanczos+accurate_rnd+full_chroma_int+full_chroma_inp,unsharp -c:v h264_qsv -preset veryslow -b:v 20M -c:a aac -b:a 256k PAL_DV_1080p.mp4

Another thing with YouTube, if your source material is 25 or 50 fps, is that only 720p and higher playback resolutions support those frame rates, so to get a source-matching playback fps you have to upload at a minimum of 720p (but I'd suggest 1080p like Kye has). For PAL DV, I normally use FFmpeg to de-interlace (using 'estdif'), upscale, sharpen and encode to H264 1080p 50fps files before I edit it. Because (by today's standards) DV tends to be horribly noisy, you need to use a decent bitrate to keep the H264 1080p quality decent - otherwise the noise creates too many compression artefacts.

A6700 'Film mode' test now on optyczne.pl - https://www.optyczne.pl/79.1-Inne_testy-Sony_A6700_-_test_trybu_filmowego.html - with downloadable video samples 4k resolution test: Full HD resolution test:

I don't think that was realistic for a higher-end APS-C camera in the current market - I think it's being priced against the X-S20 and R7.

£1449 body-only in the UK (including 20% sales tax).

Of the Panasonic cameras I've owned: The 1080p on the G9 is superb (GH5 standard AFAIK), as is the 4k. MIx 1080p and 4k on a 4k timeline and it's not that obvious which is which unless you pixel-peep (and that's 28Mbps long-GOP 1080 50p versus 150Mps 4k 50p too!). The 1080p on the GX80/GX85 is a bit soft, the G80 is sharper but more prone to aliasing. Neither is in the same league as the G9 - but that's a rather larger and heavier camera, so there's swings and roundabouts and I really like the feel of the GX80 in the hand. Whereas the G80 just feels 'functional' and soul-less... (A bit off-topic, but about a week ago I succumbed to a used OM-1 at a very good price - not had a lot of time to test it, but the video quality seems a big step up from the E-M1 iii - the 1080p in particular, which I wasn't expecting - it looks generally much cleaner and more detailed. An OM-1 versus G9 1080p comparison using the same lens might be interesting...).

Having owned a mk ii then a mk iii (both bought used), I think the better AF for video and adjustable-strength video IBIS on the iii are worth the extra money. There is also better separation of settings between stills and video on the iii. Video quality is the same in both, as far as I can tell. And Olympus/OMDS certainly seem to know how to design and build pro-grade lenses and cameras - my (used) 12-40mm F2.8 Pro has paint worn away in places plus a damaged (but usable) filter thread, but works fine and has the smoothest zoom and focus rings I've ever used. I'm getting a bit tempted by the 12-100mm F4 Pro as a consequence...

I'd agree with all of that, having gone from being a decade-long Panasonic user to now most often picking up an E-M1 iii when I take a camera out 🙂. The video quality on the E-M1 iii isn't top-notch (although the 24p DCI 4k at nominally 237Mbs is pretty good), but as an all-round rugged 'outdoors' package it's great (as is the battery life). I normally use the 'Natural' profile with the sharpness set to minimum, contrast reduced and the shadows lifted/highlights reduced a little using the 'shadows & highlights' adjustment curves. The problem with the Flat and OM-Log400 profiles is that you lose the sharpness adjustment and I find the default sharpening too high for my taste. (There seems to be plenty of used E-M1 iii and lenses like the 12-40 F2.8 around at good prices, if the budget is tight)

For video, 'Continuous AF' Mode 2 with the default 'Set 1' AF settings (sensitivity 0, area switching 0, object prediction +1) and a slightly smaller custom version of the diamond-shaped 'central pattern' focus area for most situations. For wildlife I often use the animal subject detect with a smaller focus area. I rarely film people so I almost never use human/eye subject detection. I don't use tracking AF either - I'm normally a 'keep the subject in the centre of the frame' person. From the manual:

I had a play recently (inside a camera shop) with an S5ii, X-T5 and OM-1. On the S5ii shooting FHD at 50p, in full-frame mode it does not use PDAF (it uses DFD instead) but it does use it in APS-C mode. The difference in C-AF responsiveness and focus speed was very noticeable - it was pretty snappy in PDAF, much slower in DFD. I was pointing the camera alternately at something in the far end of the shop and at something quite close using a simple mid-size focus area (no subject detect). I would say the AF was pretty confident and smooth in both cases though. The X-T5 AF was very 'snappy' (with the 16-80 lens on it), the OM-1 similar to the S5 ii in PDAF (with the 12-40 mk2 lens) - but both have adjustable AF speed and sensitivity (as does the S5ii) so that doesn't necessarily mean much. At the current offer prices in the UK, an S5ii kit with 20-60mm plus 50mm lenses is quite tempting at £2099, but as I normally shoot in 50p it's basically an APS-C video plus full-frame stills camera for me. The X-T5 is smaller and lighter (the X-S20 even more so), but for video the Fuji lenses seem to be a mixed bag in terms of AF speed and smoothness (and the IBIS isn't yet at the Pana/Oly/OMDS level). Personally I find the DFD on my G9 works perfectly well for the use cases I have - confident with smooth focus transitions and no/minimal 'pulsing'.

The X-S20 User Manual is available now - https://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x-s20/x-s20_manual_en_s_f.pdf One thing I have noticed is that none of the current Fuji cameras (including the X-S20) support plug-in power on the mic sockets, which is very annoying for me as I have several mics that need it... aargh!

Optyczne.pl have their 'film mode' review out - https://www.optyczne.pl/77.1-Inne_testy-Fujifilm_X-S20_-_test_trybu_filmowego_Wstęp.html (as well as words, there are resolution, noise reduction and sharpening tests plus downloadable general sample videos). They generally really like it, but comment that the non-subject detect/non-tracking video AF is prone to 'pumping' on static scenes: Quote from the 'summary' section (using Google translate):

In what way was the 1080p worse on the X-H2S versus say the X-T4? I'm interested to know since 1080 at 25p & 50p is important to me. I don't care about the high-fps modes used for slow-mo mo.

Decide for yourself - from the Polish https://www.optyczne.pl/ 'film mode' reviews, a few FHD test chart videos: This is their FHD test chart video for the X-H2S: (There are also some downloadable X-H2S FHD sample videos here - https://www.optyczne.pl/63.5-Inne_testy-Fujifilm_X-H2S_-_test_trybu_filmowego_Podsumowanie_i_filmy_przykładowe.html ). For comparison, their FHD test chart video for the X-T4: ...and just to show how video down-scaling to FHD should be done, this is the test chart video for the GH6 (their comment was "As long as we do not exceed 100 fps in the mode using the entire width of the sensor, the image quality is simply great" - I have to agree!).

...and I guess this is one of the Chinese knock-offs of it - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UURIG-R-77-77mm-Rapid-Filter-System-Lens-Filter-Metal-I2Z8/285223741334