newfoundmass

Still about $1500!

I get it, but you can get fine audio from almost any mic, as long as it's close enough to the source. Add some tweaking in post if needed and 99% of those watching aren't gonna notice the difference between a $100 mic and $500+ mic. As long as it's not peaking, there's no hum or other noise, it will be sufficient for YouTube. I mean, heck, going back to my buddy that uses a cheap Movo wireless mic going into a T3i that has terrible audio preamps! That gets used on the local nightly news on the NBC affiliate! I quite like Lumix colors, and the natural profile on the S5 is what I usually go with when I don't need to do heavy grading. As long as your white balance and exposure is set correctly you'll get very good results, and 8-bit is good enough to do some tweaks as long as you don't try to push the colors too much. Markus is great in that he thinks of some creative ideas, especially outside the box ones. I quite like his video/photo content, though when I read up more about him I cringed quite a bit when it comes to his health/motivational speaking stuff. Aside from disagreeing with most of it, he is accused of hiring people to attend tapings so that it looks like he's giving these motivational speeches in front of large crowds that uses for promotional videos when they are just paid actors. So I just stick to the video/photo channel, haha! I've never had an issue with using manual focus on the Lumix S5, and I usually use the screen instead of the EVF (I know, I know!) You can also buy a cheap 5 or 7 inch monitor if you have trouble nailing focus, but I've never had that problem personally. Also auto focus really isn't that bad on the S5, especially if you are there to monitor it. I definitely understand why people who are used to PDAF complain, but I've used it for year and really don't have a ton of complaints about the auto focus, especially once you get used to its quirks. I know @MrSMW, who also used the S5 a lot, has similar views. Having PDAF on my S5II X is nice, but I still use AF on my two S5 bodies and it's "fine." It's weather and dust proof! Haha! I am not trying to be a shill, but it really does blow my mind that this camera is so readily available for under $1000 on the used market. I just don't think you can beat it when it comes to video features, especially when it comes to full frame. It is very easy to overlook the EVF and auto focus when you take into consideration how powerful it is in every other way. And it's a camera that will still stand up 5 years from now, in terms of image quality and usability. I've had it for a couple years now and I still haven't used all the features, like anamorphic and external RAW. So it's literally a camera that technically I could still grow into using if I decided I wanted to use those features down the road. The only thing that I would warn about those is they can overheat when filming for long times and the X-T3 has recording limits in all modes, from what I remember. I really looked hard at Fuji a few years back; if not for the bad IBIS and the recording limits/overheating it was the system that I honestly thought would have been the perfect, as I really like Fuji colors. It's still over $1,000 here in the States. I've been keeping my eye on the used prices because I increasingly want one haha!

I wish more companies would do stuff like this. I'm looking at you, Panasonic.

You can film 4K on cheap v30 cards. You can get a 256gb SD card for under $40 and a 512gb SD card for under $60. I use them on my S5 and S5II X.

I get it, but it's probably the best mic under $100 that he can get and better than the Deity he was considering. For someone just shooting YouTube videos that aren't generating revenue it's more than enough.

Also, instead of the Deity I would go with the RODE VideoMic GO II. It will sound pretty good as a boom mic if boomed close enough and is surprisingly decent directly plugged into your computer if you need to do voice overs, since it has a USB-C connection.

Just a small correction: the Lumix S5 has unlimited record times in 4K 8 bit except 60P. Record limits are for 4K60p and 10-bit. There are SO MANY options when it comes to affordable lighting these days. I mean, realistically, you could get away with $7 clamp lights, cheap LED bulbs and using shower curtains as diffusion to start off. Especially if it's only ever gonna be used in your "studio". Here are a couple videos that might be of some help when it comes to lighting. Markus is an eccentric, kinda weird fella and I don't always agree with his conclusions, but his videos are always interesting and he buys a lot of stuff to try out (just try not to get suckered into his health/motivational grift): I was just going by what he wrote in his original post! He mentioned wanting a camera and a 50mm. I'd recommend he goes with the 20-60mm kit lens too. f3.5 isn't bad at all on the wide end and it's a really good quality lens to the point that it's kinda insulting to call it a kit lens when compared to every other kit lens out there. I use it on almost every professional shoot I do. Yeah, the Z6 is a lot more limited when it comes to video than the Lumix S5 is. The S5 is very much a video focused hybrid, while the Z6 was a photo camera that also did some video. It was a big step forward for Nikon in the department, but the S5 is superior in every way other way when it comes to video other than maybe autofocus.

I don't see why you couldn't get a used Lumix S5, a used 50mm f1.8, a tripod, mic, and lights for $1.5k. If you get the Lumix S5 for $730 and the Lumix 50mm f1.8 for under $250 (https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/panasonic-lumix-s-50mm-f-1-8) then you're already under $1k. That leaves you with $500 for a tripod, mic and lighting. That's very easy. There are so many decent affordable options in those categories these days.

With the way the journalism industry works, especially in television, in five years he'll probably be in Wyoming or some other small market, assuming he doesn't become one of the anchors or lead reporters! I haven't had cable in 8 years, but yeah, I think a lot of them are still in 1080i. I think you have to pay extra for anything that is 4K, including on streaming services like Netflix.

Canon never would've priced the C70 that low but they probably should've. By 2020 the winds were already changing in the camera space, whether it was mirrorless or video/cinema cameras. People were a lot less willing to pay the Canon tax when everyone else started releasing cameras with everything they could put into them for the same price (or sometimes less.) ESPECIALLY when it came to full frame and how the market was swinging in that direction. The choice is easier if you were already a Canon or Sony shooter, but in late 2020 if you're looking to purchase a camera and aren't already a loyal Canon or Sony shooter, I think the FX6 probably won out for most people. And then when the FX3 came out, if you hadn't jumped on either the C70 or the FX6, you had a compelling option for even less money WITH a upgrade roadmap to the FX6 right there for when/if you decided to upgrade. Nevermind when then the FX30 came out, adding another path you could take to get to an FX6. The C70 had a much pricier roadmap should you ever wanted to upgrade. I don't personally even like the image coming out of the Sony cameras. The Canon C70, in my opinion, has a much nicer image. But I'd still have gone Sony if I had to choose. As a tool it just made sense and was the direction the wind was blowing. Plus I know so many more people shooting with Sony, which would have made it easier to collaborate. All of my friends who work for major sports leagues and sports franchises have switched to Sony for both video and photo. I'm talking people who work for WWE, AEW, the UFC, the NBA, the Boston Celtics, etc. Ten years ago they were all Canon. Canon still wins with brand recognition. If you ask most folks to name a camera company Canon will still be the first one most people name. And if you look at your normal brick and mortar store, like Best Buy here in the United States, you'll see their best selling camera is the Canon EOS Rebel T7, a seven year old DSLR. At Walmart it's the EOS Rebel T100, another seven year old DSLR. But on the professional end Canon is losing ground and has been for a while. I'll ask him, but my honest guess is he's expected to provide his own camera and is using what he had. If it's what he had, or if it's what he could afford, I get why he uses it over his phone. He can still get decent shallow DOF when doing interviews, and good enough quality footage. After all, Vermont is a very small television market! It was still funny though; it feels weird to have so much nicer equipment to film my rasslin' events with than the local NBC affiliate uses to cover our event! But when people see it at home I don't think they really care what camera they used or if the audio sucks, as long as it's in focus and the sound is audible. With the way the journalism industry has collapsed he's probably not in a position to be able to purchase a nicer camera. Which is a bummer.

Yep, he uses a T3i and a cheap MOVO wireless mic (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1542503-REG/movo_photo_wmx_1_2_4ghz_wireless_lavalier.html) right into the camera. Budgets for local news have been cut all over the country; lots of reporters use their cellphones or their own cameras now. When I first did ENG work I was the camera guy that worked with the reporter and used professional equipment provided by the station. Now they all do it themselves for most stories, and only use the professional equipment (which is also mostly ancient) for major stories/press conferences/live feeds. The Panny DVX200 was pretty ubiquitous up here as far as station cameras were concerned but those all went away and now my bud uses a T3i and a $40 wireless mic system haha. Wild times. When using the C100 mk2 recently I fell in love again with the body design and, honestly, the image looks good upscaled to 4K. I could very easily take three of those bodies and do my multicam work with them, upscale it to 4K and it'd be fine. Most people wouldn't notice or care. There was some voodoo going on, too, when it comes to that codec. 8-bit at 28Mb/s or whatever it was shouldn't have been as thick as it was, but you could do some pretty heavy color grading on such a small file. The only thing that I would miss is IBIS, but with a body like that it is less of an issue. I know sites like Lensrentals sell them used for under $700 now, and you could probably find them even cheaper on eBay if you wanted to risk getting something that had no warranty, exchange, etc. It's a testament to the kind of workhorse that camera is that there are so many out there still going strong all these years later.

Yeah, I'd escalate it to a manager or something. This is nonsense!

For me I only really need three cameras, and they're what I have: Lumix S5 (2) Lumix S5II X (1) They cover all of my professional needs and I also just enjoy using them for my own personal use. I do plan on picking up a S1R when the used price goes down even more. Having a high resolution stills camera for promotional pictures I think would be useful. I could also use it for backstage promotional videos at my wrestling events. I've also debated getting the Lumix S9 as an everyday carry camera. I really don't enjoy using my phone to shoot photos and video. It just doesn't give me that good feeling I get when using a real camera. I sometimes feel like I'm in the minority though in that regard.

While I understand what you're saying and somewhat agree, there are more people using FX3s than C70s, and there are plenty of reasons people went for it instead of the C70, namely lenses, full frame sensor, and price. When you then factor in the FX6, which was similarly priced and had "better" features, the C70 seemed like even less of a good deal to those who weren't married to Canon. Not only does this graph support that, but just my own personal experience does too. Between sports, weddings, conventions, festivals, commercial shoots, news gathering, and docs etc. I really can't emphasize enough how few people I see using Canon these days, let alone the C70 or C80. Compared to 10 years ago or so when I'd do these same events and there were tons of C100s and camcorders, it's really night and day. Though the guy coming to do a story on my wrestling event this Sunday for the local NBC affiliate will be using a T3i, which cracks me up.

Bo Burnham filmed his Netflix comedy special "Inside" on the S1H, too. Yeah, by the time they released the C70 (for $5500) the landscape had radically changed. It was only three months later that Sony released the FX3 for $1600 less than the C70 and 18 months later that they released the FX30. Unless you were a loyal Canon user there weren't many reasons to buy one of their overpriced cinema cameras when there were more affordable and, arguably, better options. If Canon had released the C70 for $3500 things might be a bit different today.

Events are my bread and butter and they are dominated by Sony. I really don't know many Canon video users outside of corporate shooters, where the C70 is a big hit with them. A friend of mine is also using C100s and I got to use them again recently, which reminded me how much I loved that camera and wanted to get one so bad for the longest time! But here, at least in the northeast, Sony really has taken over from my experience. Meanwhile I'm over here trying to do all of it with my Lumix cameras! Haha!

The decline in Canon's cinema lineup started a while ago. It took them too long to release a 4K successor to the C100, and what they have released are too expensive. I mean, the C70 was $4500 on release which is a lot when you compare it to what else was out there in that price range. Before that your options were the C300 mk III ($9,000) and C500 mk II ($11,000). That's a lot of money when Sony had cheaper options. I know so few people shooting video on Canon these days, and those that do are mostly in corporate work. I'm actually surprised that many films used Canon cameras.

I really do think this is a solid release. I do hope that we get more overheating tests and if there is an issue a firmware update to somehow fix it. Having overheating issues with active cooling is wild. I do think I'll end up picking up a S1R. Having a higher resolution stills camera for taking promotional photos of performers in higher resolution could be really useful.

He essentially said he doesn't need/want to create "art", that it's not relevant to what he does or what his videos are about. He said he COULD if he wanted to, but doesn't want to. "If you want reviews like that, go somewhere else" was basically what he said. He said he doesn't care how these cameras perform in those scenarios, and says he really doesn't even care about things like DR or rolling shutter because he only makes videos in his basement set where he has lighting and the cameras are on tripods. He just tests that stuff because it's what people asked him to do. If you take that, and then go back to the video last year where he complained about Lumix and bragged about going on these exotic trips and never actually shooting anything, it just makes you wonder why he is even interested in cameras to begin with because he seems to have no real interest in creating anything with them other than videos of himself in his basement. I guess it's a living, but he seems miserable.

I don't think it's nonsense at all. Cameras exist to create art. If you're not interested in creating art with them then why dedicate your time to them? It's like someone owning a bunch of guitars but not knowing, and having no desire to learn, how to play them.

Because most people aren't going to ditch the convenience/familiarity of their iPhone for a camera focused phone from a camera manufacturer even if the photos and videos are significantly better than what the latest iPhone offers. And those that would be interested in such a product are so few as to make it extremely difficult to make a profit, I imagine.

I don't hate Gerald or think he's a bad person, I'm just bummed at what he has become. He genuinely seems pretty miserable doing this stuff, and the more he shares about himself (the comments about why he doesn't create anything were really illuminating) the more I wonder why he is even into cameras to begin with. If you aren't inspired to actually use these things to create art or entertainment, then what are you even doing? Those comments in particular brought me back to a comment he made in his previous video last year, where he bragged about being brought on these press trips to exotic places and filming nothing. Say what you want about those trips and whether they are ethical or not, how are you not inspired to photograph or film the sights and sounds of these exotic locations and the elaborate sets these marketing folks have created for you if you're even remotely into cameras? Surely your interest in cameras has to go beyond what you film in your basement and the tests you run on them... right?

Gerald DOES get a lot of dumb criticism, but he also uses that to deflect valid criticism by lumping it all together. This thread, which also is related to another time Gerald got upset and decided to rant to his subscribers to make himself feel better, discusses most of the criticisms and his hypocrisy. He helped create the beast that bothers him so much today. I remember making this post in October 2022, which is around the time I kinda realized what Gerald really is about. It still rings true, too.

I don't think any camera company could enter the phone market and be successful at this point. As @ND64 mentioned, even the Chinese companies are having trouble. Heavy hitters like Microsoft and Google have tried to enter the market to little success; Microsoft failed while Google has a very small piece of the market despite being the primary developer of Android. And I think trying to appeal to folks that want better photos and videos is such a small niche that I don't think it'd work.

He could probably save himself all these headaches by giving more context in his videos if he feels that they are being misconstrued or misunderstood. It's hard to feel too sorry for someone who created the problem he now has. He pigeonholed himself into being THAT guy because it was what got the most views aka generated the most revenue, and now he hates it. Seems less like "Rise of the salesmen, Death of the artist" and more "Rise of the salesmen, Reaping what you sow."