John Matthews

I think Olympus 17, 25, and 45 Pro lenses would also do this.

As long as the G100 has an IBIS, PDAF, and a proper shutter with sync speeds greater than 1/50s, I have no problem with it. Those were the faults of that camera. I like the form-factor. I'd agree with this except I really like the photos from it, but it has been a chore to shoot differently than the way I shot with other cameras. The handheld 100mp is simply voodoo magic, blowing away the results of many other sub $2000 cameras. It's slow, but for landscapes and "slow" portraiture it's amazing. I love the colors off it too. It faults majorly if you think you can shoot it like other ISO invariant cameras (like the GH5), but the 15-16bit files hold tremendous information in them, especially in the midtones. Most people only look at the highlights and shadows and want to turn crushed blacks into greys, not possible with the GH6 IMO. This is an engineering question, but why not? Sony's RX series has PDAF and a much smaller sensor. Technically, it must be possible even with the dual-gain circuitry. Again, after seeing my E-M1 ii side-by-side with the GH6, I'm still rather happy. In good light and with no stupid twinkle YouTube light in the background, you can't see much of a difference. Going forward, you will see viewers will be more forgiving of this. It's only because we're camera nerds that we care. Recently, I've noticed so many Hollywood films with blatent focusing mistakes.

This might sound uninteresting to some, but I'd be semi interested in the FZ and LX series of cameras with PDAF. Has anyone heard anything? People are so quick to say everything is dead, but these lines still have a place, especially since phones suck at ergonomics and telephoto.

Is there a way Canon could break this compatibility? They would if they could.

I found the "That Weird FILMMAKER" channel just a few days ago. I have to say it's the funniest and most informative channel channel I've seen to date. Here are the ones focusing on Olympus Pro gear. He seems to know what he's talking about. He convinced me to get the 17mm Pro for my GH6. Amazing that he only has 700 subs.

Hello. I'm not a pro, but I have experience with filming my family. Here's my pre-pressing the record button thoughts: If people, objects or camera move closer or further away -> use continuous AF with subject recognition (you mileage may vary with some lenses because this matters). You can also tap on the subject you want so that the cross-hairs appear on their face (for a person). In decent light, this mode is "serviceable" with the right lens IMO. Be sure to turn on continuous video AF in mode 2 (the camera will pre-focus the scene for you and continue during recording). This is the method for "automatic" AF but you must watch it. In the same situation, you could also use manual focus. A blown-up version of the scene should appear and will aid you in getting critical focus. If people, objects or camera move only side to side or locked down, along the focal plane -> use single-point AF with subject recognition. You could also use manual focus and just push the AF button on the screen. Hope that helps... there might be other who could also help you.

Watched a video. I guess you can "hack" the connection so that it never goes to S35 unless you turn the camera off. It vignettes under 28mm in FF.

I'm not seeing any vignetting with this lens. What focal length did you use it at? 35mm? Do you know if it vignettes at any other focal length?

What about the higher frame rates? It's great that it has 4k 60fps (with crop), but we don't get much above 120fps. I imagine that's for a video flagship camera. ...not that I NEED any of that, but it's interesting.

Now they've hidden the fan under the "pentaprism", I think I'd rather have the security of no over-heating than a EVF off to the side. That was very clever design on Panasonic's part.

The killer IBIS is the feature of this camera that everyone will be chasing. Personally, I think e-mount will have technical limitations to match. After watching Gerald Undone, I'm guessing the AF will simply be good enough that no one will care anymore. Finally, l-mount is relatively open for all manufacturers to join... unlike the recent Canon bullshit... I see some people moving to l-mount soon. This camera is going to sell like gangbusters IMO.

There's one other thing I thought of: don't check that "use lossy compression" box. Many programs cannot read any compressed DNGs.

I'm always curious about 16mm lenses as I'm always looking for new ways to use my grandfather's Bell & Howell set of lenses: 4", 1" and .7" trio, pictured here next to my GH6. I would like to get them cleaned and re-lubed, but I'm not sure about how to go about that.

Do you think l-mount could support c-mount lenses?

Good. Back to "Panasonic and what they have up their sleeve." ... not M43 vs. FF. Thank you!

Ok. Can you cover 16mm-ish to 600mm (FF equiv.) in under 1kg with ANY single FF mount kit? How about 2kg? 3kg? That's what I'm saying. There are lenses in M43 with simply with no equivalency in FF in terms of weight. When you do find a lens, you won't find the other lens you need in the same mount.

I really don't get the reason why people who have FF cameras are so disturbed by the mere existence of M43. Can't we let M43 be M43 and FF be FF- it's all good. If you like the image format and size, great! Why does one have to be inferior? They both do things that the other cannot do. I think there's the inconvenience. It would seem that people want simplified answers- bigger sensor, more megapixels, high bit rate, etc. I'm not saying those thing don't matter, but there are other things too. Cameras have ergonomics, exposure tools, ports, EVF's, image fidelity, etc. None of that is "Full-Frame" or "xx megapixels" or "intra-frame compression". So many cameras produce great images these days, even good enough for Hollywood. After, it becomes the best tool for the job and needs.

If I were going small FF, I'd rather go Sigma FP than anything Sony. The OM-5/ E-m5 iii would destroy the A7C in IBIS, a much less expensive camera. With the 17m f/1.8, you get similar DOF. Both are 8bit. The Sony can seriously bust out great performance on the DR chart, but I personally don't like that image. The Olympus combo would be lighter too. The real advantage for M43 is with longer lenses, where FF cannot compete in terms of size. Like you say, it's just physics.

According to a recent interview, they mentioned a smaller M43 camera is on the horizon. This year, not sure but I’m ready. Their last lens release was the Leica branded version of the 12-35 f/2.8? Or are you referring to the 9mm (which I now have)? I’d also like this camera, but I’m fine without the evf altogether… I want the small size above all.

I'm waiting to see what they have in store for M43 before I'd ever jump on a camera like the S5ii or S5iix. I still have hopes for a small M43 camera with PDAF, great colors, solid codec, and decent rolling shutter.

I haven't done it recently, but I have converted GH6 RW2 to DNG successfully. I used the latest version of Adobe's DNG converter (because it wouldn't work if you didn't have the latest version). I don't use Davinci anymore, but I thought you could do it. I suppose you're trying to use the photos from the 75fps mode on the GH6? @Andrew Reid did something similar with the E-M1 ii a few years back. I've also tried it, but I think I resorted to exporting the files to jpg from lightroom and then using ffmeg to put them together. Theoretically, Davinci should be able to handle DNGs. Not completely sure what's going on here. However, in my limited time with the GH6, I've discovered that this camera has uncanny slow-mo abilities, yet mediocre photo capabilities (except the 100MP mode and 75fps). You really cannot shoot it like any other M43 camera I've used (protect the highlights and raise the shadows in post). You really need to nail exposure and increase ISO whenever necessary as you need that info in the shadows. The GH6 shines around 800-4000 ISO. Under 800 hasn't been better than almost any of my M43 cameras. In fact, I think you could just shoot video all the time and extract stills from it and I bet the results would be almost as good.

If I were you, I'd try converting them to a older version of DNG to assure compatibility... I've never really seen any real difference in the output. With your GH5, you were probably using Lightroom 4, so make it compatible with that and I bet it'll work.

This will all be assuming that any of this LiDAR tech is any good... remains to be seen.

As a $500 accessory, pros will buy it. As a $200 accessory, prosumers will buy it. As a $99 accessory, everyone would get it along with a new compatible Panasonic lens if it works well. Speculation is fun sometimes, but I might be going off the deep end here. Maybe, this device has nothing to real-world AF and is prohibitively expensive. Who knows at this point? Again, I'm decently happy with the limitations of DFD, but I also believe that PDAF should not be the endgame as it just adds much more complexity to the sensor.

I'd agree with everything you just said too. LiDAR had better offer something that PDAF can't or show everyone exactly why LiDAR is superior. I do know my iPhone 12 can detect my identity in pitch black lighting and no PDAF could ever do that. They might find something even if it's more for pros. We might also be forgetting all the other types of sensors that could interact with a processor to get better images. I'm not sure how or what, but I could imagine there's something.