newfoundmass

I'll be interested to see how the autofocusing works. I think Panasonic's 1.8 primes are decently priced, as they are better built than their Canon and Sony counterparts, but I also don't think it'd be a bad idea to release more affordable compact primes that are more competitively priced. A third party manufacturer probably shouldn't be the ones releasing a nifty fifty in the sub $200 range when your competitors have ones.

I use a Tascam Portacapture X8 to record from the mixer in 32-bit float to one track and then have a stereo mic with a long XLR cord placed somewhere it won't be disturbed going into another track. When the mix doesn't have all the instruments it's not ideal, because it can pick up too much audience noise, but it's better than nothing. Thankfully most venues I've filmed in have all the instruments mic'd. For instruments that aren't in the mix you might even be able to set up a second recorder and mic them yourself?

Thinking a company should, at bare minimum, release products that are reliable isn't internet forum spazzing, haha. "They shouldn't offer that for free" is some bootlicking type behavior, whether it's people excusing Sony, Canon, or whoever. You're not asking for it for free, you're paying a $1000 for a camera! It really isn't relevant what brand you shoot, it's that you make that excuse for ANY company that is the problem. I really can't believe though that we're in 2024 and people are justifying overheating, particularly for cameras that are targeting video creators! People surely shouldn't have to watch a 20 minute video to watch some dude sitting in his "studio" tell you that the camera overheats. As much as it bummed me to have a recording limit, at least with my original S5s I knew how long I could record and bought the camera knowing that limit directly from the manufacturer. That recording limit also at least told me how much video I could reliably record in 60fps, too. I also didn't experience overheating with it even in 98 degree weather under direct sunlight, imagine that! Again, those hosting companies are clear about it up front. If a camera company can't guarantee reliability past a certain time then recording limits should be imposed so people can reliably judge how long they can record. Transparency and honesty doesn't cost these companies a thing, some just don't care about their customers enough to give it. I can kind of see why, because people are all too happy to make excuses for them.

Brother, no offense but I think you should rename yourself to EatsTooMuchBoot cause this kind of attitude toward any company is ridiculous. The least they owe you is reliability.

It's all digital projection now, unfortunately. The drop off in quality is significant. I've only gone to the theaters because my nephew wanted to; it still is a semi magical experience for him. But I'm very much over it.

Reliability shouldn't be reserved strictly for professionals.

To me, putting a recording limit on a camera that is likely to overheat is the way to go. Whether it's a large issue for most users or not, not giving people an idea on how long they can actually record before it overheats is something that can easily be avoided with a simple limit, certain companies just don't do it because they remember the complaints they got from the 30 minute recording limits. At least Panasonic is being honest in telling people heating is an issue and here is how we are attempting to mitigate it while giving you an idea on how long you can actually film with it.

Is dynamic range important? I don't know, is it for you? Cause that's the only person that can answer this question.

$500 is a lot of money. ---- I think the hype for this is (as usual) overblown BUT there aren't a ton of options at this price point, making it enticing for a very specific audience. I do feel as though we are moving backwards and heading towards Canon cripple hammer territory taking things like IBIS away (not that Sony IBIS is very good to begin with.) What I really wish Lumix would take from this release is THE POWER ZOOM. GIVE US SOME, PLZ.

I don't know that their current business model is sustainable with a constantly shrinking market and being a niche system. So the question is really "how long can OMD stay in business?" It'll really boil down to how long OMD wants to stick around before deciding enough is enough. Panasonic has seemingly slowed down their decline and possibly even reversed it a little, so their long term future is less in doubt I think. But M43's future is still up in the air and really depends on whether Panasonic decides to keep going with it if it's just not a profitable part of their business. Even if it does stick around I don't know that we'll ever really see the true promise of M43s, which was small cameras and small lenses with powerful features. The lenses are smaller, but the bodies aren't that much smaller than their full frame counterparts. Still I'll always have a soft spot for the M43 system and wish I'd kept a couple lenses.

I don't think so at all. iPhones (and phones in general) are obviously very popular, but M43, 1-inch compact cameras, and action cameras have all been on the decline for a long time. Really the whole industry has been, but GoPro for example lost $75 million last year. Their stock has plummeted something like 97%. The action camera market is not doing good, even though DJI and Insta360 have been pretty aggressive in releasing new cameras. They just don't have the burdens GoPro has, since they are Chinese companies and action cameras aren't their only products. Sony put out vlogging cameras in the ZV and RX100 series of cameras, but they didn't really set the world on fire. It sounds like Panasonic is going to release something similar but I have my doubts that it'll be successful. Vlogging just doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as it used to be, with a lot of people transitioning to different content and even before they did that a lot were using APS-C and full frame cameras for YouTube, and many others have transitioned to using phones for the short form content they post to TikTok, Facebook, and IG. M43 will exist as long as OMD and Panasonic want it to, but the GH7 could realistically be either the last stand or it could breath new light into the system. Too early to tell, but it got a lot of praise but whether or not that translates to people actually buying it, who knows? I kind of regret getting completely out of the system, but I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't have ended up having to in a couple years anyway.

IBIS on Panasonic M43 cameras will always be better than the IBIS of their full frame counterparts because of the smaller sensor. Still the IBIS in the original S5 was very good. The S5II cut the IBIS gap, but it still couldn't compete with the GH6, G9 or the GH7. Panasonic full frame IBIS is still head and shoulders above everyone else though.

I say this as a S5II X owner... a lot of people saying this (and there are more than one) are Panasonic shills. The stabilization is great, it's why I own the camera, but we're getting a bit ridiculous. Less youtube shill videos plz.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Honestly we dumb the conversation down when we just talk about PDAF or CDAF, as if each implementation is equal to one another when that simply isn't true. Look at Fuji. It switched to PDAF what, 6 years ago? Yet it still isn't very good. We also ignore that CDAF's hit rate in stills was pretty much on par with PDAF, meaning the issue was largely video related and that issues like pulsing were issues with CDAF in general. Panasonic built on years and years of fine tuning their auto focusing algorithms and technology, which were always pretty solid, and merely switched how the focusing is done. Do I wish they'd done it earlier? Yes, if only because I got sick of people (mostly people that were never going to use their cameras anyway) complaining about it.

I don't even think they lack in resolution. There are old cameras with 1080p that still look good to me, among them the original BMPCC, C100, and the GH3 (and hacked GH2). They might not have the higher resolution or the DR of cameras today, but they have pleasing images that hold up. In fact, from a pure image standpoint, the BMPCC was my favorite camera I've ever owned. It's the other quality of life things that made me move on more than the resolution or dynamic range. Other cameras had a "good enough" image, but better battery life, IBIS, auto focus, audio preamps, etc. were all worth the trade off. I could pull out my GH5 with minimal rigging and get 2 hours of record time, amazing IBIS, good enough auto focus, and all the other things that made my job significantly easier.

The gap has really closed, and the fx3 is just an A7sIII, which at this point is a 4 year old camera. A camera that came out last year should be close to a 4 year old one!

Like with your GH5 post the other day, almost all cameras made in the last 10 years are capable tools that can produce nice images. It doesn't mean though that you should go out and buy a GH4 in 2024. There are plenty of "quality of life" improvements that have occured since the GH4's release that make it a lot less desirable camera compared to something like the GH5 or S1. We're blessed to be at a point where we could use a 10 year old camera and still get good results if we HAD to, but let's not pretend that the cameras that have come out since aren't significantly better in every way. IBIS alone radically changed the way I film and work.

Why not?

Yeah, I wouldn't expect there to be another S5 until 2026 sometime. There really isn't a reason to release a mark III sooner than that, especially with whatever else they have in the pipeline. Even a year from now the S5 II/X will be a really good value, and they can lower the price if needed to keep it competitive. They hit a home run with their entry model, now it's time to focus on their other cameras.

Having owned both, the S5ii is much more reliable. But the AF "issues" with Panasonic cameras were always overblown in most instances and easy to manage. The biggest damage the dfd system did was to their reputation. I still use two S5s to film pro-wrestling, a pretty unpredictable endeavor, and the AF is fine, which if you'd only seen unpractical AF tests from Youtubers you'd never believe was possible It IS though almost absolutely unusable for small objects and animals in video

It's not apathy, it's just being a realist. There is very little that I can do when my business depends on using these programs. There simply are not alternatives out there that would seamlessly slip into my workflow without adding time and limitations. I wish there was, as I've spent time and money trying other applications out because I despise the subscription model. Things that take literally a few clicks in Photoshop can take minutes to achieve in Affinity Photo or Gimp, and for me that's just not an option.

You don't think that artwork is being used when it's posted to the internet? What do you think is being fed to AI, man? Until there are laws in place there's not a ton we can do. Not excusing it, just being honest. I'd love to say goodbye to Photoshop and Illustrator because of the subscription mode alone, but as I said there's nothing out there replaces them for me.

Most everything, honestly, has jumped the shark at this point. I was watching a toy YouTube channel over the weekend with my niece and it had more shallow DOF than a Zack Snyder film AND used slow motion when filming the toys. You think the 6 year olds watching were impressed?!

The problem is that there's nothing that comes close to replacing Photoshop and Illustrator for a lot of us. I bought Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer, but they overall slowed me down and lacked features. For all the criticisms that there are for Photoshop and Illustrator, and they are all legitimate, they get the job done and for those of us who've used them for 25 years it's very difficult to switch. Unfortunately this is the new future. We're all training AI every single day without even realizing it. Our posts on this message board are probably being used to train AI, not to mention our social media, search history, etc.

As a Final Cut Pro user who has also used Resolve, my primary reason for sticking to Final Cut Pro is all of the plugins that I've purchased that are a part of my workflow. If I was starting over though there really isn't a single reason I can think of that I'd choose Final Cut Pro over Resolve. Export times are very impressive on the new chips Apple uses, but they aren't that much faster than the performance you'd get from Resolve. There are still things about Final Cut Pro X that confuse and frustrate me, even after all these years, and honestly I've still not forgiven them for deviating so far away from the Final Cut Pro UI and workflow.