John Matthews

I appreciated your(@Andrew Reid & @Dave Maze) insight on Olympus and their opportunities. Just a few months ago, almost everyone was saying they're over without giving the slightest chance to the new ownership... seems unfair. They have a unique opportunity for becoming competitive in video due to not a having high-end video market to protect, especially if any sort of raw or 10 bit is included on the camera. Add waveforms and a few other significant features in firmware and they could be golden, given there are so many lenses are out there (new and used). Forget the FF stuff, just sit back and watch other commit suicide in that market. So much of the focus is on the cameras- not enough on lens selection (with AF). MFT and Olympus in particular could have amazing possibilities here with their phase detect AF. If done right, they could eat up significant market share. Sure, it probably will never be the dominant player, but it will attract hobbyists and pros alike (as they often just rent high-end gear that matches customer needs). A question to both of you: Do you think Panasonic will ever have PDAF? I've heard many people say this won't happen because Sony owns the tech when it come to their sensors and won't "allow" Panasonic to have it. Personally, I think it's BS, but have you heard similar notions? Without PDAF on MFT, their future's very limited IMO for video.

That ibook was the G3 one as you can tell by the lettering (Apple Garamond). The G4 (I still have and use mine just for fun) had the Myriad font on it. They were great little machines... I love the fact they have a 3:4 aspect ratio screen and fairly detailed. Got mine in 2004 and it still runs fine. I just prefer Apple's concept for computing back then.

Back in 2001, Apple announced their computer as a "digital hub". I essentially still work like this, maybe using online backups only as a third backup. All my music, video (shot personally or ripped), photos, and documents are still on physical drive that I control. In recent years, Apple and others have been shoving the cloud down our throats, but does anyone actually work like this? For the person that does exclusively use the cloud, I could see a real benefit of a phone like the 12 Pro Max. The experience of touch and small screen still seems poor at best. It seems I only use touch if I absolutely have to. I feel so at home with big screens, a keyboard, and a mouse.

I looked it up on the evilcorp Amazon, but I'm afraid I'm going to pass on this book... too many bad, thoughtful reviews. I don't buy new stuff anyway, but I might get it if I find it used. I appreciate the extraordinary effort you made to prove to me that phone usage is all ok this world. After all, what could go wrong? 🙂 Going back to the iPhone 12 Pro Max, that thing look tablet-sized, only 1 inch less than the iPad mini. I'm really surprised Apple is making them bigger and bigger. Someone must want it... maybe if it's your only device/screen. I used Lumafusion a number of times, but the audio syncing is what forced me back to my Mac and FCPX. It was just way too cumbersome. Anyone know of an app you can automatically sync audio and video or is that still a no-go?

The world is shit. People are shit. The end. Do you like my film proposal? Inspiring, isn't it? 🙂 I've heard the arguments for and against phones, social media, and gaming... On Sunday, I heard Leo Laporte talk about it again on the radio. I listen to other podcasts where they talk about it. I'm in my mid 40s and I too have struggled with issues with addiction to gaming, phones, and social media. I have real world experience with the "future leaders" of the world. My optimistic conclusion for the moment is looking more and more like WALL-E, the Disney/Pixar film. I don't knee-jerkingly say "everything new sucks." That's not me. Just embracing everything tech can have its own issues. For one, humanity's demise. Remember, tech is often used for controlling people, winning wars, and total domination. Now, is it all innocent and good?

I have taught 200-300 teenagers in the last few years. Phones, social media, and gaming have stifled their development in a traditional sense. It's not one or two- it's the majority! Doing something without their phone is a problem. The thought of going only one day without playing a video game is a problem. Is that addiction? I'm not sure, but sure does lack variety and it's so bad that now they don't allow phones at the school anymore. You're right, it's not at gunpoint, but do you know anyone who takes heroin at gunpoint? That's not how addiction works. Unfortunately, I don't really see the value in these devices. 5G? ...4G and 3G were good enough for me. Camera? ...I'm happy with my proper camera. Screen size? ...I prefer the smaller screens if it's supposed to be portable. My point is "progress" is a very subjective term. I don't like what I see.

Reminds me when air-conditioned computer server rooms at universities were getting replaced with a small beige box in the 90s. University presidents were probably thinking they got scammed big-time! Customers will probably always prefer the bigger camera. Remember (in stating the obvious): The human hand will not change in size. Phones will be awkward to use. The human eye will not suddenly see more. Other than their size advantage to fit in small places and their carry-everywhere nature, their resolution will be matched by a proper cinema camera. The human ear will not suddenly hear more or better. Phones again are awkward for audio. The story is and will always be king... no one cares about great quality crap (but I can think of a few films where this is not true).

Am I the only one saddened by AI? What ever happened to a good-old-fashioned camera? I don't want camera's inventing the experience, regardless the quality increase. I know you're going to say: "cameras already do that!" However, there's such a thing as the heavy-handed approach and the subtle approach- I prefer the latter. I'm actively trying to find ways to eliminate the smart phone completely from my life while others are trying to further (and willingly?) addict themselves.

Working with the E-M1X, have you seen significant differences in video capabilities with the E-M1 iii?

Personally, I don't see a bit difference between the two.

I actually can't find much info on this, but my camera (Olympus E-M1 ii) has an HDMI out that I'm connecting to a BlackMagic Ultrastudio Mini Recorder. Here are some questions: 1) Would setting the camera to ALL-I have any practical impact on the image recorded? If so, what? 2) Although the Ultrastudio MR only records 1080p 30fps max (and it does it in a weird interlaced way), it also somehow accepts or recognizes a UHD signal, but not the DCI signal (probably not supported). Any ideas for why it accepts the UHD... is it line-skipping? maybe the HDMI signal automatically adjusts... I'm confused. Does anyone have experience with either of these points?

I'm only chatting. I don't have any intention on changing systems or anything like that. @tupp and @BrooklynDan actually used it. I was only thinking about what would be the modern equivalent of the NPR, which seemed to be a revolutionary camera back in the day. It (and the Arri) was the camera that made production mobile. I guess even a phone could accomplish many of the things that the NPR could, but I don't really want to talk about phones. The actually image produced really depended on the film stock used. I think there's definitely something to this logic. However, how many people have back problems due to these heavy beasts? Also, in your opinion, do you think IBIS could give a similar results to the shoulder-mounted rig? I imagine this is definitely the case. Rolling shutter on CMOS has been better controlled in recent years, but still a minor issue. It's too bad that CCD tech didn't get better and cheaper like CMOS. Hopefully, there will be something on the horizon to replace CMOS... perhaps the stacked sensors? In terms of resolution, I'm fine with a good-looking 2k or 1080p image, as long as the framing is right in-camera.

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!