newfoundmass

Good for him! Takes a lot to recognize you have a problem. Still, he looks a lot healthier (and younger) in that video than he does now. Sometimes people who lose weight tend to go overboard.

I was waiting for your thoughts!

100 pounds is a gross exaggeration, but I did notice he started to lose weight about a year ago. He wasn't a big guy to begin with, but looks to have lost at least 20 pounds, which I think is way too much. I too hope he's okay.

I am kind of surprised that it's "only" 44MP. I'm not complaining, it's just not common that you go with less resolution in a mark II vs. the original is it? Granted it's only like 3 MP difference. Will S1R shooters be angry? I've never been someone who takes/needs to take high resolution photos, so I'm genuinely curious.

https://www.l-rumors.com/exclusive-first-specs-of-the-new-lumix-s1rii/ Updated article.

I could see this being popular with small businesses/marketing companies who use their iPhone currently but are interested in higher quality photos and videos to post, in addition to the zoomers that are interested in compacts right now. I talk to people in those fields every day and they are interested in "upgrading" but are confused/intimidated by the offerings out there. One of the people I work with at the Chamber of Commerce was asking about cameras the other week and when I mentioned Sony* they said they had so many options they didn't know which one to get, and that they also would prefer Canon because in their mind Canon = the best camera company. They've also mentioned in the past that they are intimidated by interchangeable lens cameras. If this is decent I'll probably end up recommending it to her. * it's kinda damning that when someone asks a Lumix user about compact cameras I mention Sony and not Lumix.

I think the only thing that a S2H could have that would make me even think about it would have to be internal ND. Honestly the S5II X does everything i need and then some.

Very true. I've long said that most of us don't even have a television large enough to make the most out of 4K so the push for high resolution is kind of pointless. I agree in principle, THOUGH I do think the ALEXA still has more advantages than just dynamic range. People I know who work with it always tell me it's the easiest to get the grade they are looking for and for my eyes there is something about the image that feels more organic. I am, though, open to the idea that there is a level of bias when looking at footage you know is from an ALEXA.

I thought it was obvious that the first was the Alexa as the image just looks more organic, though I can't put my figure on why. I don't think either looked particularly great though. I assume that has more to do with location and lighting.

The Alexa 35 came out in 2022. There were instances where I thought the FX3, a camera I do not particularly care for, looked better than the Alexa, like in the outside handheld shot. I was genuinely shocked when he showed the results there. And in the interview scene it was wild how close the FX3 was to the Alexa 35, though the Alexa did stand out more. Ultimately the Alexa 35 is gonna have that secret sauce that helps make it stand out above every other camera in most situations, but in 2025 someone could absolutely take a sub $5000 camera, film a feature with it, and 99% of the people viewing it wouldn't know whether it was shot on an Alexa or Canon R5 II. Bo Burnham filmed his Netflix special "Inside" on a S1H and used other budget film equipment you can get on Amazon to do it. No one, outside of us camera nerds who paused and rewinded reflections of the camera and equipment like it was the Zapruder film, noticed or cared.

I mean it's not really fair to compare an Alexa to any of these more affordable cameras. It's an Alexa for a reason. When you buy one you aren't just paying for the camera itself, you're paying for the decades of research and development that went into the image processing and color science that gives it that Alexa look. That's what you're paying for when buying any of those higher end cameras. The other part comes down to the sensor, too. Higher end cameras have sensors that are specifically developed for them. That's a huge difference. While these lower end cameras have software and processing that is tweaked to work with sensors they buy, the higher end cameras use sensors that were designed specifically for those cameras. Finally, there is a Luca Forsyth video that compares several cameras, ranging from the FX3 all the way to Alexa 35. His results were pretty surprising.

I actually think the camera body itself looks quite decent (I hate the logo/name though) but the reviews all seem to indicate that it shares a lot (if not most) of the same internals as the OM-5. Other than a cash grab I don't really understand why this camera exists.

I'm more optimistic about Lumix than a lot of people. I think they will continue to release the best value cameras out there, the issue will be not just retaining their current users (regardless of which system they are invested in) but growing it. I think they can achieve that. I have seen signs that they've accomplished the latter somewhat with the S5II X. It has been more of a trickle than a flood, but there are people out there who switched from Sony to Lumix because of it. To continue that, they need to continue on the current path but radically change the way they communicate and market their product. That, for them, seems to be the hardest thing to overcome.

It's not the lack of releases that is the issue, at least not for me, it's the lack of communication. They don't need to be like Sony, who releases a new camera every time there is a minor upgrade that could've been released as a firmware update. In fact I'd prefer they don't! But simply giving people an idea on what is in the pipeline would sure be welcomed. Tell people that S1, S1R and S1H successors are in the pipeline and give people a little meat to chew on. There's no reason not to, especially when the user base and many in the industry are nervous about the company's future in the marketplace. The silence reminds me of period between the GH5 and the announcement of the GH6 and why I moved on from M43 to begin with.

I'd still go with the S1. In the US the GH5s still goes for about $700-750 on eBay vs. $1000 for the S1. The S1 is such a better camera in every way, it's worth the extra $250. And you can start a pretty good lens lineup for pretty cheap between the excellent kit lens and the primes on the used market. My primary reason for looking at the S1R is that I've already got the L-mount glass. Buying into another lens system just doesn't make sense since I've got so many great lenses already. Once the S1R hits sub-$1200 it'll be hard not to pick one up.

I'd have to go back and look at old footage, but I don't think I ever encountered vignetting when using Lumix lenses on my old LS300. I wish JVC had released a successor, that was such an underrated camera.

I think forming the L-Mount alliance might've been primarily because of the pre-existing relationship they had with Leica and the convenience, as they'd already worked with the mount due to the existing relationship. I think they could've created their own mount and still worked with virtually all of the same companies. It's not like the user base of Leica users that already had L-mount lenses was that huge or that those folks would be all that interested in Lumix cameras because they were Leica users already for a reason. And it's not like those who bought Lumix L-mount cameras ended up buying a ton of Leica glass. But why potentially piss off Leica? ---- The more I think about it the more I do think Lumix should consider releasing a smaller sensor L-mount camera and some smaller lenses. Testing the waters with the potential of unifying all their cameras under the same lens mount seems like the best bet. I know it risks hurting the M43 line but unifying all their offerings under a single lens mount seems like the best move long term, especially considering all of their current M43 lenses are getting a little long in the tooth and could use an update.

While I don't have a ton of experience with the S1, I'd go with it over the GH5/GH5s. Why would you recommend the GH5s instead? You can get a used S5 with warranty from MPB for a little over $800 or even less on ebay/marketplace without a warranty. The S5II used is about $500 more, enough of a difference that I'd recommend the S5 instead. You can get almost 2 Lumix primes used for that $500 difference. I'm waiting for the S1R replacement to be announced so I can pick a S1R for even cheaper for still photography. I'm sure the replacement will be a great camera, but the S1R will be perfect for my high resolution still picture needs and I don't need the latest and greatest.

I don't think it'd have given her the look she was going for, or feature the water in the background.

I think a big part of it has to do with the simple fact that taking pictures or video with your phone just isn't very fun. It doesn't feel rewarding. I never really go back and look at the photos and videos I've taken on my phone. Often I forget I even took a picture! There is something though about taking an actual camera, putting it up to your face, looking in the viewfinder, and clicking the shutter. It stimulates a part of the my brain, and the images are much more present in my head than anything I've ever taken with my phone. And then, at the end of the day, I go over all the photos I've taken, often with a couple of pictures in mind that I'm excited to see, and it just is such a rewarding experience. It's the closest thing to the excitement you'd get when you'd open up a freshly developed set of film and seeing how things had come out. It just feels so much more meaningful. I think that's a big part of what might be fueling a compact revival, and really might be what ultimately saves the camera industry. You just can't replicate the picture and video taking experience that you get using an actual camera.

It is one of those things that can get blown out of proportion, but there is just something really organic about the S5's image. The S5II/X, to my eye anyway, is just a little too sharp even when bringing sharpness down in the camera. It's very subtle though and I've always assumed it had to do with whatever they had to do with the sensor for PDAF. It's so far from being a deal breaker though when you factor in the other quality of life improvements. If I was in a position to do so I'd upgrade all my cameras to S5II or S5II X bodies. But I'm not in a rush because my two S5 bodies will still be going strong and the image will almost certainly still hold up years from now. I don't think stagnant is the proper word, but things haven't changed very much in the last few years. You can pretty much pick up any camera released after 2017 and it still holds up well even today. The leaps that were made between the DSLR revolution and the release of the A7SII and GH5 were gigantic. The leaps made since, while welcomed, aren't nearly as significant. I know people who still are using the GH5 for their video business and while it's kinda crazy to imagine running your business on 8 year old cameras, it's really not as crazy as you'd think given how well it still holds up. That S5 though... 😉

The S5 is still such a great camera and one that you can still grow into, all for under $900 in like new condition with a warranty on sites like MPB, or even better deals you can find locally or on Facebook Marketplace/Craigslist/eBay/whatever. And even though it's going to be 5 years old this year, Lumix kept improving it with firmware updates so it doesn't feel terribly outdated. One of the reasons I say it's a camera that you can still grow into is because I've never even used the ProRes RAW or BRAW capabilities, never really had to because I do mostly event work, but the fact that the capability is there is incredible. There's just so much value in that camera even today. We've kinda hit a point where there's a good chance you will still be able to get comparable images from it five years from now, because you can't really say there are tons of cameras released since that give you a significantly better image in the under $4000 price range and I don't know that we're going to see a huge leap in the next 5 years outside of more resolution that most of us have no need for. Great camera and it's pretty funny how often I recommend it.

Also, Blackmagic is a great option, however if you are doing a lot of handheld you'll want to at the very least have stabilized lenses, if not some way to stabilize any handheld camera work you do. Those cameras aren't very heavy or friendly in the hands, as they are pretty cheaply made, so you'll want something to add some bulk to it and make it more handheld friendly.

The overall quality of life improvements (plus auto focus) are just worth it to me. Currently my three camera set up is the S5II X and two S5 bodies. I just prefer the image out of the S5, it has better colors and just looks more natural (less sharpening.) That's not to say that the S5II doesn't have a good image, though. It really boils down to preference. I've only used the S1 a few times, but it's a great camera too! I do think the S5 though is overall a better value on the used market. It's crazy how affordable they are. Some will tell you they are awful and completely unusable, but they are fine once you figure out how to work with their limitations. But there are limitations and it's important that you know that going in. It is nice not having to worry about it as much with my S5II X BUT there are times when that auto focus fails, as there are times when Canan and Sony auto focus fails.

I'd love to get them, just there are always compromises made. For example I tried the Meike lenses and they just aren't well built. Optically they are very good for their price, but I have zero confidence that they will hold up to heavy use. The ones I got also focused in reverse and didn't work with my S5II X's linear focusing (I've heard this has been fixed for their "pro" lenses). Ultimately I went with Lumix primes instead, which you are pretty affordable on sites like MPB. You can get the 50mm f1.8 for $229 in "Like New" condition; for that price you might as well just get it over the Meike 50mm F1.8 at $169 new. It's a better lens and it's better made. Another issue I've had with third party lenses is that they aren't always consistent. A 35mm will have different color shifts and characteristics than the 50mm does and so on. I've even experienced where the same lens, bought together at the same time, had color shifts between them! It's why I really like what Panasonic has done, as every lens is not only the same size but they are pretty much identical optically. I can easily switch between them without adjusting anything. Still, if they put out a really nice fast prime that is well made and significantly cheaper than the Lumix or Sigma version, then I'd definitely be interested. I don't have a ton of uses for a 1.2 or 1.4 lens, I don't usually need that much light or bokeh, but it'd be nice to have one when I did want that look.