John Matthews

Well, being 16mm, I've understood that it would be a digital equivalent 3k image (when everything goes right). I found some info on price and it was about 100,000 French Francs in 1984 for a proper setup. Based on the what they say in the video, ergonomics were excellent with good balance, but I think it's important to say it had a "stable" image in the right hands and you could walk with it. In its day, it was the smallest (9.2kg), hand-held camera that could produce an image good enough for the cinema from what I understand, though the standard has always been 35mm for that. It could produce 10 minutes of continuous video at a time. For documentary work, an assistant would line up 3 preloaded magazines to get 30 minutes, but it would be difficult for them to keep up after that. I find it interesting that the EOSM with ML is consistently mentioned. Would that produce a 3k image?

Would I be wrong in saying there was a carefree nature of this camera, meaning you didn't have to think so much about setup, just find a moment and start shooting. Question: would you consider the modern-day version a camera with raw (big files) or 8 bit?

Found this gem of a YouTube channel called "ADAPT Television History" talk about how things used to be. In this one, they talk about the Éclair NRP 16mm Film Camera. It was one of the first usable portable cameras back in the day for documentary work. My question is what you think is the modern-day digital equivalent of the 16mm Éclair NRP? I'm just curious what you think.

Dialogue is best. I think he'll come around to the same conclusion that he should follow the rules or go away.

OK. This was problem I was initially having. I was going through this thread seeing an "Outstanding" comment by Lightshooter. I honestly thought there was something wrong with my monitor! In fact, Hangs4fun was self promoting... no other explanation. Sucks to get caught with your d**k hanging out. I do think he isn't a Sony self-promotion shill though... just an error in moral judgement. Lesson learned? Best to just be yourself and have honest communication... on the internet, everyone thinks you're lying anyway; tell the truth- it will be easier to remember and you can feel better about yourself.

It looks great! I like the colors. The A7s3 is too much for me and my needs. What are you going to do with it? Are you going to put this video on your website, maybe as a video background of sorts? Where was that taken? It looks like there are some good trails and photo/video opportunities.

I watched your first grade of the footage and I thought there might be something wrong with my monitor, as I simply couldn't see how someone might say it looked good. The slider work was excellent though. Then, I saw this footage and I find it looks much better.

I found EOSHD because of RX100. I participated in this site because of the GX85... even bought a EOSHD Pro Color. Ventured onto Sony FF, regretted every minute, again bought EOSHD Pro Color. Went back to M43 and I'll stay there for the foreseeable future. IMO, which camera has: best image: S1H, BMPCC 4k best AF: A7 III best allrounder (photo and video): GH5, A7 III best value: GX85 most versatile for its size: Sigma FP Those are tough choices though and I haven't used all of them. Also, lens selection is probably equally as important when using AF.

Maybe this sounds stupid, but there's something very comforting about framing a shot with the camera off. Loved my K5 , even if it had mediocre video. Still, most sales of new bodies are DSLR's.

I wonder if a "badge" system would be a good idea. It could be easier for reviewers to create a simple logo to communicated with their audience about what they accepted in return for their review. Obviously, the top badge could be the ones who bought the device when it came out and accepted absolutely nothing in return. A lower badge would be company x gave the device, money, trip, accommodation, food, "professional" entertainment and the such.

I think it would be great to reward the reviewers making a genuine effort to be clear in an ethics statement. Are they taking money? Were they flown to a camera release show? What were the expectations? What was paid for? If they gave a "bad" review, did the company offer money to take it down? When did they film the review? These are all things commonplace in the biz today according to Gerald Undone. How is it we're not hearing more talk about ethics then? I don't think anyone could say the answers to these questions wouldn't have an impact on a review. Yes, it could have a positive impact in other ways too. However, it seems the idea of what is "fake" has now been put into question. Black is now grey and so is white. We no longer have isolated lies- it's a firehose. No fact-checker can actually keep up. Ninety-nine percent of experts agree on something and the ONE expert who disagrees gets significant airtime due to sponsorship. We need something.

I'd like to know if people would be interested in a camera gear reviewer website? A website that would clearly state (maybe even index) the ethics of camera gear reviewers on the Internet. The intention would be to help people make purchases. Recently, I've seen ethics statements from camera gear reviewers (Gerald Undone and MKBHD, for example), but these statements are far and few between. There are a whole host of websites and youtube channels who have been overrun by various industries. My feeling is there are payoffs, under-the-table deals, and gross mis-statements in regard to camera gear. The results of the reviews can be clearly misguided and inaccurate. Is there a way to rectify the situation with a website to clearly layout and help reviewers and their audience understand how they've been influenced by camera gear companies (and the PR firms that help them) with regard to their "reviews"? Any feedback would be appreciated. Maybe this type of site already exists? Maybe it's a stupid ideas. BTW, I'm not saying I'd create the website or be involved in any way, shape or form.

They used to be in that "galaxy", not any more, even less with JIP. Sony sold 100% of their stock in Olympus. Just search for it. "Sorry". It looks like you lack key information to call out other people and try to make yourself like the all-knowing guru/historian of the camera industry. We're all idiots in comparison. BTW, Japanese companies still work in a system called "capitalism"- it's not some karate dojo where they fight for honor!

I'm not going to give up on M43... I'd rather roll with used bodies for the foreseeable future. Don't like Sony, Canon, Fujifilm for various reasons. If Panasonic is "dead", you might as well say Nikon is too. Come to think of it, what else do I want that used Olympus doesn't already offer? Now, they've got RAW (actually, I don't need that), great used bodies and tons of lenses on the market. I'm quite happy. Some will say they're behind, but I don't see in the final product or even usability.

Sony sold their stock in Olympus. Show proof of the contrary. I might not be a company insider like you, just using common sense. Better ways to spend my time than reading nerdy reports! Are you saying no amount of money from Panasonic to Sony would allow them to put PDAF in their cameras?

If what you say is true about Sony, I'd be inclined to believe the Panasonic/Olympus to Newco rumor we've just started. It's important to remember Sony digital cameras are not part of their sensor division. Also, your premise is that no amount of money could change this... that's not how capitalism works.

You're saying Canon owns their sensor tech, but simply pass it off to Sony (as Apple does Foxconn)? Seems reasonable. But here, we're talking about why Panasonic cannot/won't add PDAF technology. Do you have the answer?

This is what a popular photography website reported, who got these numbers elsewhere. No breakdown on "pro" vs "consumer", but that's a fairly blurry line these days. Also, I believe these numbers are worldwide (too high for 128m people in Japan?)... analysis only includes Japanese brands. Here’s how many mirrorless cameras the top brands shipped in 2019: Sony: 1.65 million Canon: 940,000 Fujifilm: 500,000 Olympus: 330,000 Nikon: 280,000 Others: 240,000

This will certainly be interesting over the next few months. Olympus had been out-selling Panasonic in 2019 by a fair margin. And really, I'd love to see a Panasonic Lumix/Olympus merger for MFT. I do find it curious that Panasonic made that PR statement. Could it be related to Olympus? There does seem to be some sort of timing issue. Maybe since the JIP/Olympus thing went through, now Panasonic is willing to also sell to JIP. This would combine tech from the two companies and consumers would potentially win. Then we might be going off the deep end of wishful thinking.

This might be wishful thinking, but you're right. Not much needs to be done for Olympus to kick ass in MFT (sorry, watching too much Cobra Kai!). I will say, about their menus, the super control panel is the best thing since sliced bread. Decent slow-mo and internal, editable, 10-bit should be a top priority. Finally, they simply need to tweak their face detection to work at a greater distance from the subject. With all the rest being the same, it would be a winner! Again, ain't nobody goin to buy that GH6 with PDAF IMO. There are just too many other options at the same price-point. I'd rather run a two-camera setup with Blackmagic 4k and a Sigma quatro, or something there the likes.

I'm going to say this is pure speculation and I don't think Panasonic deserves a "pass" on not including PDAF, other than (maybe) they didn't pay Sony for some sort of "right" to put phase detect points on the back of the sensor. And your theory wouldn't hold up if you consider Olympus who had PDAF in all modes. Sure, Olympus is a older player, but still. If there is truth to any to your theory, Sony sounds like a predatory monopoly. I wouldn't go to Sony Pictures to pitch your documentary idea.

Both of those companies have used Sony sensors and PDAF. As for Canon vs Sony AF, I think it depends.

Please explain to why Fuji, Nikon, Olympus and Canon can have PDAF on their Sony sensors but Panasonic cannot.

I've heard about DFD tech forever...incremental upgrades..."now it's a viable option"... blah...blah...blah...except it isn't PDAF and doesn't work nearly as well FOR VIDEO. For photography, it's great! I'll tell you this: if the GH6 doesn't have PDAF, we'll really know about the intentions of Panasonic to let go of MFT or not. It's THE spec that EVERYONE is going to care about, regardless how good they make DFD or repackage it and call it something else. No one is listening anymore IMO. Just pay the piper and pass it on to the customer.

If this is true, it's a sad state of affaires. Personally, I doubt they'd impose that sort of thing- a highly monopolistic move. And why would Sony say it's fine for Fuji, Nikon, and Canon? Would they actually be THAT scared of MFT? I think Panasonic has invested too much in their contrast system that they can't turn back. How much does it cost to the customer to put PDAF on a sensor anyway? 100 Euros? I'd pay it! What are they doing?