newfoundmass

I don't think you have to choose one or the other, but regardless, the issue is that if they DO need to choose one or the other they should communicate that to their userbase. Instead there's silence. If your userbase feels abandoned as some S1/S1R/S1H users obviously do, you should probably do something about that, especially if you're the #4 or #5 camera company that can't really afford to lose users.

I don't think people are asking to do away with the firmware updates in exchange for more frequent camera releases. 6 years is a long time though in-between camera updates especially without any communication with your userbase about what comes next. I get why early adopters would feel a bit nervous.

Since the GH5 it certainly has been a rollercoaster for Panasonic. It feels like when they move forward they always end up taking a few steps back, too. That's what I find most frustrating about them. I've warmed up to the S9. I think the S5II and the S5II X are fantastic. I'd argue they are the best value out there right now, aside from a used S5. I think the GH7 and the G9II are both great entries for M43 users. These are all recent cameras that show that Panasonic is still cable of putting out quality and competitive cameras. But we literally have no clue what the future holds. There are reasons, both good and bad, as to why you might want to keep things tight to the chest, but they need to realize that their position in the market doesn't afford them that luxury. If they want to maintain their loyal users, let alone grow the user base, they need to be more aggressive. I'm not ready to jump ship and I am not freaking out yet about their full frame cameras. I can run these S5 and S5II bodies for years to come, I'm not going to buy a S2H or whatever anyway. But it would be nice to know that Panasonic sees a future for users like me so that I can make informed plans a few years down the road without wondering if Panasonic is committed to their camera business or not. Sony or Canon users don't even have to worry about this stuff; as a 10+ year user of Pansonic dating back to the GH3 it'd be nice to not to have to worry about it either. --- This camera, though, doesn't need to exist. I don't think there was much of a demand for a G95 let alone a slightly updated model that lacks the one feature a significant part of the market wants out of any camera: PDAF. I can't recommend this to my nephew who is getting interested in vlogging (goodness help me!) I can't really recommend it to anyone I know who is looking to take the step up from their phone either because even though it is a step up I can't really say this is a better value than what Canon, Sony, Fuji, or Nikon are offering in this entry level market. I don't want to recommend a Canon or Sony camera, but I would over this. If Panasonic is going to keep m43 around, they should've just blown up any plans they had for the G97, phased out the G95, and put resources in developing a camera the size of the G100 that has IBIS, PDAF, no crop, and can at least record 30 minutes without overheating and use that for an entry level/vlogging camera. At least you could look at a camera like that and think "hey, they are actually trying something different and building on the promise of m43!" And it could actually have an appeal in getting new users who don't wanna carry around bigger cameras.

Even as a freebie I don't want that lens. It's a waste of materials. At best it'll end up collecting dust in a drawer or worse, end up as waste in a landfill.

I loved my G85s. For a camera that was released in 2016 they were excellent value, probably amongst the best values of that era. That was 8 years ago though and cameras have come a long, long way since then. I don't expect it to be as good as the GH7, but it should probably, at minimum, include the one feature that the marketplace has made clear they want: PDAF. An entry level camera is supposed to be the entry way into a camera system. Something that entices the customer to choose that system over the others. I really don't see how on earth this accomplishes that. Even if that is the case, I'd have just quietly released it without any press because this release was never going to be met with anything but frustration and disbelief. It's just another example of how inept Panasonic is with their PR and marketing.

Seriously, who is going to buy that camera? Who is it for?!

You thought Lumix had left behind DfD behind? You're wrong! What a shame.

props to Rode

they mentioned having been in Japan and being tired while filming this

Marketing and communication are both weaknesses of Lumix. They get held to a different standard, and that's unfair, but they need overcome that. I mentioned it in the other thread, but I'd still be shooting m43 if it didn't feel like they were abandoning it three years ago. From the lack of info on a successor to the GH5, the "WTF" releases (G100?!), and the focus on full frame, it just seemed like we were being forgotten. Even now, we really don't have much info on what Lumix is working on. That announcement later this month could be for literally anything. Could it be an update for the S1 line? A G200? Could it be a lens? Or a major firmware update? We have no real road map to give us an idea.

I understand the backlash. You release a compact camera but have no compact lenses to go with it, EXCEPT the weird f8 lens it launched with. It just didn't make sense. There weren't a ton of reasons to get an S9 if you were going to need to use larger lenses anyway. I think it'd be really cool if they released some small f2 or f2.8 primes to go with it.

I don't think it was stupid to have a recording limitation. If anything it was being honest: this isn't a camera that should be doing long takes and if you do so, you do it at your own risk as it can damage the camera.

If the GH7 had come out three years ago I'd still be a m43 shooter. I only made the change because I thought Lumix had abandoned m43 and the S5 on the used market was such a bargain. It was like, do I hold on to all this m43 gear and hope Lumix comes out with a camera that works for me or do I offload this gear while it still has value and switch to something else? The full frame look never blew me away the way it did others. For me the primary benefit has been the better low light, but as you said @Andrew Reidthe low light on the latest m43 cameras has been pretty darn good, certainly "good enough" for most of us. I sparingly want shallow depth of field, so I'm often shooting at f4 or more anyway. Is it nice to be able to throw on one of the fantastic Lumix f1.8 prime lenses and get really shallow depth of field when I want it? Yeah, but I usually only want that for stills not video and I can count maybe two or three dozen times in the last 3 years when I've wanted that look. That's not a lot, and I can't sit here and say that if I'd been "forced" to settle for a f1.4 or f1.7 prime on m43 to achieve it that I wouldn't have been pleased with the results. I DO see an improvement in image quality, but I've also never been a stickler for that either. I loved the GH5 because of how it changed the way I shot, not because it had the best image quality or color science. For me, image quality and color were more than "good enough" even if they weren't THE BEST. I didn't need the best though, I just needed the features that the GH5 gave me that no other camera did. I used to have to use stabilizers to get useable handheld footage. All the sudden, because of IBIS and lens stabilization, I was able to get great handheld footage with nothing more than the camera, lens, a cage and a side handle. I could still get great footage even without the cage and side handle if I wanted to! That was HUGE. It was the greatest leap forward I'd had in changing my workflow since the switch from big clunky S-VHS and Betacam cameras to the Canon XL-1 and Canon GL-1 camcorders. There is still a lot to love about (and potential in!) m43. I miss the smaller, lightweight lenses of m43. I miss the smaller footprint overall (being able to take the GX85 with the 35-100 f2.8 into any venue with rules barring interchangeable lens cameras and not even raising an eyebrow was amazing!) I really, really wish they'd devote some resources to make truly small and compact cameras, because to me that is what is missing from the market. I don't want to use my phone because I don't get the same joy out of taking a picture or filming something with it. Could a modern Lumix GM1 work? I think so! I'd buy one and carry it with me everywhere! I think it'd even be a hit with the YouTube "creator" crowd. But yes, we really have kind of lost the plot when it comes to this whole hobby and industry as a whole. We've gotten so caught up in hype and specs, while placing less value in what got us into it to begin with and that's the process and the rewards. To me, that's the biggest difference between modern "creators" and those of us who have been doing this before becoming a YouTuber/creator/social media influencer ever became a career path. I shot with extremely limited cameras (compared to today), edited on linear editing systems like Videonics and Video Toaster, and had to devote a lot of time, patience, and passion into what I created, even if it was a project that was under 5 minutes in length. Even when things moved to digital and NLEs first became available for us poor folk (thank you to my college friends that got me academic discounts!), we'd have to still capture the footage and do a lot of the work in editing. Now you just film, dump the footage, bring it into your editor, and the NLE does a lot of the heavy lifting. It's why most of it all feels and looks the same. Fuck it, let's all just start filming on Betacam shoulder cams and Video Toaster again! Or at least mini-DV and old copies of Avid or Final Cut Pro! I know I still have my original Final Cut Pro 4, 5, 6 & 7 install discs somewhere!

I've been itching to buy this. I don't think I will because for my work it'd make sense to just get a S5II to go with my S5II X, but it reminds me of my beloved GX85, which I still regret selling. It's one of those cameras that you can walk around with and if you're using a small enough lens no one really bats an eye at you, whereas even stripped down people will look at me when I'm using my S5II X because I think people have been taught DSLR style bodies = professional camera. I'm glad to see you interested in cameras and posting again @Andrew Reid!

My little wrestling organization is looking to do more social media related content, so we decided to get a wireless system for it. Because it's professional wrestling I didn't want to spend a ton of money on it, as it could easily get damaged. I also didn't want to waste money on a system that had internal batteries, so that limited my options a lot. In the end I set out to accomplish a couple of things: Spend as little money as I possibly could while still achieving decent audio quality. Find a system that didn't feature internal non replaceable batteries. Find a system that had a decent enough build quality. Again, spend as little money as I could! With the focus being on small systems like the Rode Wireless Go and the dozens of knock offs, I knew that it was going to be difficult to find anything new under $200, which was my initial spending goal. Still, I looked and there were systems from Movo and Comica with so so reviews on YouTube, but as with most YouTube reviews these days I had to take them with a grain of salt because they were from smaller channels who I suspect will praise anything that is sent to them for free or channels that I feel have proven themselves to be biased. Regardless, these reviews weren't thorough and were essentially just someone testing them in their bed roo... er... "studio" and then, sometimes, going out into a field to do a range test. There isn't really much you can learn from these folks if they aren't putting the system through its paces. I started to think about spending a little extra and getting a Sennheiser or Sony system, which I could use for my non-wrestling work, but then I remembered the old Rode Rodelink systems that were the rage back in the day. Surely they'd be under $200 by now! I had experience with them and had also watched dozens of videos about them back in the day when YouTube wasn't just the marketing arm of all these companies. So I went to eBay, and typed in "Rodelink." Yeah, they were definitely under $200! Indeed, most of them were well under $100! There were lots of "Buy It Now" listings for $50, $75 and $100, most listed as being in "excellent condition." I scanned the listings and found one that was 5 hours away from ending. It had a "Buy It Now" price of $50 and a starting bid of $25. The pictures of the item looked like it was in pristine condition (it even still had the plastic screen protectors on the screens) and the listing said it was in "excellent condition, like new." It came with all the accessories. The seller was reputable, with 100% positive feedback and hundreds of reviews. So I said "eff it, I'll bid." What's the worst that could happen? Someone would probably come and snipe the auction at the last second anyway! They didn't. 5 hours later, as I woke up to go to the bathroom, I looked quickly at my phone and saw I'd won the bid. The winning bid? $25, shipping included. The Rodelink Wireless Filmmaker kit was still selling for $399 new as recently as 2022. On Monday mine arrived. I've pretty thoroughly tested it and I'm almost certain this unit was barely used. It has no scuffs on it, and like I said it still has the protective film on the screens. The sound quality is more than adequate and the included mic doesn't seem to have the RF interference that some folks used to get when using it. I could not be happier with the purchase, and short of one of the wrestlers destroying a receiver or transmitter I think this will last for years; certainly longer than any of the super small wireless systems with internal batteries will, anyway! Not bad for $25! Let this be a reminder that we don't need to always get the latest and greatest. There's a lot of great old gear out there that is more than adequate and will cost you a fraction of what you'd pay for new. The latest Rode systems aren't appreciably better than the old Rodelinks, at least not when you compare the prices. Is the $219 for the Rode Wireless Go II really have that much better sound than a Rodelink system you can get for 1/4 the price? And when the batteries in the Rode Wireless Go II die in a couple years and you can't replace them, the cheaper used Rodelink will still be going strong with replaceable AA batteries. Seems like a no brainer for me!