mercer

I don't really have a camera with me at all times. I have my phone, but I only use it to take photos for work or if I need to make sure I'm buying the right thing. If I could go back to a flip phone, I would in a heartbeat.

I think I like smaller cameras in theory more than practice, if I'm being honest. But I also never had a problem with DSLRs. The only benefit for me to shooting mirrorless was the ability to shoot some different lenses... but then you had to deal with big and clunky adapters which kinda made the small mirrorless concept moot... not to mention the annoying crop factor.

I have 3 that I enjoy for everyday shooting... a Minolta X-7a, a Pentax P3, and a Yashica FX3 Super 2000. If I'm going digital, I have a Pentax K10D with a 12mp CCD sensor and ibis that suits my needs. Although I prefer video, I don't get out enough to shoot anything worthwhile for day trips. One day soon, I am hoping to shoot a short film or something and I'll probably use my 5D3. I will say that I do miss shooting video with a small camera but even the GX85 I found to be fairly uncomfortable to shoot with and prefer a bigger camera. My dream camera would be a Nikon D5500 with DPAF, ibis and internal raw video (or ProRes)

Without looking at the actual specs, but having owned both cameras, I am pretty sure the FP is around the same size or smaller than the GX85. With lens options, you may have a point although the Sigma primes are fairly small. To be honest, this move to mirrorless seems kinda pointless... you're trading body size for lens size. It's kinda mind boggling really. I guess I've been out of the loop... I know the R5 had overheating issues... but it was my understanding they fixed it? Did I miss something? I'm also pretty sure that the RF mount has plenty of smaller primes. With that said, I understand you're already invested in m4/3 but it may be time to start thinking about a different company because Panasonic isn't going back to smaller cameras unless you want a G100. Which I may be in the minority but I actually think it looks like a cool camera.

To be fair, it seems like you specifically want Panasonic to continue making these cameras? Sony has the RX0 and ZV line that are pretty impressive. Although, recently discontinued, the Canon M200 is as tiny of an ILC that you can get. Then you have the Osmo Pocket, Insta360, GoPro, etc... there are tons of options. For some reason, every other company, except for Panasonic and BM, get a ton of crap on this forum with comments like Cripple Hammer, or whatever, but Panasonic gets a pass because they offer waveforms or something... but I feel like Panasonic is the worst of them all. In the past 3 years Canon has been the biggest innovator and are still making small DSLM cameras... look at the R50 or R100... they're pretty small. An R8 full frame camera with 10bit and cLog3 costs $1299. You can get a Sigma FP for $1000 used and not much more new... There are options... just not from Panasonic because they only care about full frame now, or they think any worthwhile m4/3 camera should be priced at $2000.

I must admit that I have been very tempted to try out the ZV-1. I guess if you want to go real cheap, the F version is a possibility as well. I've had a couple RX10ii and I really like Sony's 1" sensor cameras.

Not at all, that's why I suggested that if you think the one version looks better than the 24p version, then there's nothing more to discuss. Then I asked OR are you trolling. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I am entitled to react towards it how I want. And again, if you believe the 24p version looks worse, then there is no reason to continue this discussion.

This may be one of two downvotes I have ever done. I hate doing it but if you think that looks fine, then this discussion should just be closed because there is literally nothing more to discuss... or are you really just trolling?

Yes, @JulioD the most interesting thing I have learned from this discussion is that I am not the only person still shooting ML Raw.

Hahahaha... this is so stupid. @zlfan you are the one that claims 24p is outdated, yet you are the one demanding that the majority prove you wrong with scientific evidence that 24p is more cinematic than 60p... Sorry to tell you, but it's your claim, so the burden of proof lies with you to prove us wrong with scientific evidence.

I think it's just about ROI.

I saw this video on YouTube a few weeks ago that could be useful for some of you guys to think about...

That said... Long live 24p... AI will have to rip it from my cold, dead hands.

We invent tools to make a task, and therefore our lives easier, right? Well, at what point are our lives easy enough? At what point are we making ourselves obsolete? We wouldn't invite a bear, or any other apex predator, into our house, but we'll create one that's entirely intermingled into every aspect of our lives... The hubris of mankind...

What it will be able to do is combine visions or auteurs... what if Kubrick made John Wick or what if Spielberg made ... What would naturally take a person with his/her own vision and craft will soon be realized by a soulless machine. Sad.

Great rundown Kye, and to add, @Jedi Masterstated in an earlier reply that he watches movies for escapism, yet he wants them to look as real as possible? I also question the motives, or rationale, of people who consistently argue in favor of HFR filmmaking/exhibition because they base their opinions on practically no films that exist since 99.9% of all films have been shot at 24fps. So maybe they just don't like movies.

I kinda agree with that. And maybe if there was a public domain law for people's likeness, that could be interesting... after 50 years... or something.

Even escapism is art. Hollywood is run by unions, and the unions will not let that happen for a long time. Eventually, actors will sell off their likeness', or their heirs will, but until that day, you will not have the star power to put asses in the seat of an AI generated movie. Sorry, you're entitled to your opinion... obviously... but the evidence in favor of 24p dwarfs any anecdotal evidence against it. So as much as you want to believe the winds will change after nearly a century of tradition... sorry there is just no evidence for your claim... The fact remains... if people wanted to see films shot at 60fps or 120fps, then films would be shot like that. The ones that attempted it failed.

@Jedi Master Sure let's take humanity out of art. Sadly you're probably correct, but it will take another 20-30 years before it happens entirely. I'm still waiting for the flying cars and hovercrafts we were promised in the 80s. Btw, 24p looks better. No room for debate. If other frame rates looked better, they'd be used. It's been tried and were utter failures. But every couple years there are a few new forum members that try to argue against it... but their argument has no footing because every example they have that it looks good, has been shot down by the audiences. Btw, what is that you shoot that makes you prefer 60p or even 120p?

Give him a week or two and it will be the best camera for him. 🤪

Hey guys, I don't really shoot any video, or stills, but I am really into barbecue... can you recommend a cinema/stills camera for me so I can convince my wife that spending $2500 on a barbecue grill is a good deal.

Just get a Canon. The R7 is a great deal or Canon even makes some decent camcorders if that's something you're considering.

Or bring a bat and when he hands you the camera to look at, hit him over the head and run away.

Last year as I was getting into film photography and shooting a little less video, I did a quick inventory of my gear and seriously considered selling a lot of it and buying a Super 16 camera. It turns out I have a few digital camera that shoot raw video when I probably only need one and a ton of lenses when I probably only need a few. I love digital, but I understand and appreciate the look and feel of film. That said, yes you're definitely right about the video split but even the crystal synch screams higher end camera. When you compare the cost between a completely refurbed Beaulieu or a Nikon R10, the cost of the Kodak, for what you're getting, isn't irrational at all. When you add the new film stock, I could see this being a very successful camera. And with that said, I think a $3999 final cost would have been a bit better.

Who the fuck is Jack and will he be buying a Kodak Super 8 camera? Speaking of fingers on a hand, I think Ben has shot more on film and won awards than he has fingers, so I'd personally trust his understanding of the market. Although I think it's a little pricey, I have no doubt that they'll have plenty of preorders. I would if I could justify it. If I owned a rental house in Topeka, I'd buy 2 or 3 for when the shops in LA or NY run out of them. Film is alive and well.