newfoundmass

It's not a revolutionary camera, but it's very competitively priced, which I think is the main goal. I think they understand that there's a segment of their customers that won't shoot on anything that isn't full frame so this probably isn't going to hurt those sales anyway, at least not to the extent that it'd hurt more than they gain from bringing more people into their ecosystem with a camera like this. I really don't want to go with Sony, but getting 2 or 3 of these might be the direction I end up going. Though I have a Lumix S5 and quite like it I've never been someone that particularly cares about full frame, so "downgrading" doesn't really matter to me. The lack of video features that even the entry level S5 has is frustrating, though and might be enough to make me wait to see what Panasonic does.

I guess it's their version of the cripple hammer? It just seems ridiculous that if you want these features you need to drop thousands of dollars more on the FX6 or FX9, especially when other companies add these features to their non-cine cameras.

These more affordable "cine" cameras are very interesting to me, but it really drives me crazy that they lack so many video centric features. Like how do you call something a cine camera without offering DCI 4K?

I think I speak for everyone here when I say that we're here for you in your time of need, Andrew. I'm so sorry that you, Zara, and your Mom are going through this. You all are in my thoughts. ❤️

First, cool video! Second, there could be a couple things at play. I believe that YouTube prioritizes larger channels over smaller ones when it comes to transcoding, so larger channels have better quality than smaller ones. The other thing is that YouTube simply might not handle ProRes footage very well, even though in theory you'd think the higher the quality of your input, the higher the quality your output would be. Try exporting using your editor's YouTube setting and see if you get better results!

I have no doubt that if they'd switched to PDAF 3 or 4 years ago they'd be neck and neck with Canon and Sony. Sony no doubt has their diehard fans, but a Lumix S1 or S5 with PDAF would've been THE YouTuber camera. Whether we like them or not, those are the users that will help ensure a company's longevity.

I agree, but I acknowledge what they need to do and that the long term viability of their camera division depends on getting rid of the AF stigma. It's one thing when it's people just repeating the things they saw on YouTube but never have had actual experience with a Panasonic camera, but I own a S5, a GH5, a G85, and a GX85. I've also owned the GH3. I use these cameras for professional work, and have an interest in seeing Panasonic succeed because I am invested in their systems. While the autofocus performance on the GH5 was always better than people gave it credit for, and I find the S5 to be pretty good in that department overall, that doesn't matter if the majority of the market thinks that Panasonic AF is completely useless. The market has spoken, whether we agree or not, and they need to do something about it. The S5 is genuinely my favorite camera I've ever used. I'll probably end up buying at least one more, given the price and quality. But I'd be lying if I didn't acknowledge that my eyes are looking towards the future, and it's becoming increasingly harder for me to see myself sticking with Panasonic if they can't guarantee their longevity in a shrinking camera market. I want my camera equipment to be serviceable, and I don't want to be stuck with a bunch of lenses and accessories that belong to a dead system. A lot of folks don't care about that stuff, bless their hearts, but I do. If in the next couple of years a Canon/Sony/Fuji camera comes along that offers everything I need for my specific kind of work and at a good value, it will be very hard not to unload my Panasonic gear while it still has some value and move on if they haven't improved their image problems. There are a lot of people like @MrSMW and myself who are looking for a reason NOT to jump. The ball is in Panasonic's court whether we do or not.

First, I genuinely believe that Panasonic not only offers the best value, but their video capabilities are significantly better than their competitors. Still, I think it's important for Panasonic to be more aggressive in letting people know what their plans are and to meet the needs of the market. Sony and Canon don't need to do it because they're leading the industry, but Panasonic absolutely does. I don't know how else to say it, but the auto focus perception is killing them. I will maintain until I'm blue in the face that the AF isn't as bad as people claim, but the bottom line is people demand Sony and Canon level AF. It is what it is, and the longer they delay it the worse their long term prospects seem.

It is unlikely to ever happen, since these companies often build on top of existing code for new camera releases, but it'd be really cool if they opened up older cameras that are no longer available to the hacking community the way some developers have made older software open source. I know there have been some attempts, but a completely open source camera system would be really exciting.

I recommend everyone check out the other cameras he has done videos on. Pretty fascinating stuff.

I really enjoy this series, it's one of the genuinely good/interesting things on YouTube, but I especially liked this episode on the Digital Bolex. I always wanted to get my hands on one but never did. It's a shame that it ended up the way it did, because it genuinely was a pretty revolutionary way to create a camera. I don't know that we'll ever see a camera built with the same spirit and vision as the Bolex, and that's too bad.

You can compare whatever lenses you want, but it's not fair to compare primes and zooms. The design of a zoom lens prevents it from matching the optical quality of a prime. That's the trade off you make for convenience and versatility. So, I mean, if you want to compare a 16mm prime to 16mm on a zoom you're free to do so, but no one is going to take it seriously. It's just not a useful comparison.

It's also probably easier to do with a smaller sensor, right?

Looking at it from Canon's perspective I get it. And maybe it won't hurt them if they crack down on third party lens makers. It's hard to tell how many people would really care if they do, because I don't know that we're representative of the majority of their users. To us the ability to use third party lenses and adapters is a big deal, but most professional photographers aren't going to use a Viltrox lens anyway. They'll stick with their Canon lenses. And most lower end users I feel probably will stick with Canon lenses because it's the easiest / most convenient option. Assuming I'm right about that, then the question is "if the majority of Canon users are going to invest in Canon lenses then why do they care about these small third party companies to begin with?" I think one of the big things that helped Sony, I think, was their lens options, which is kinda funny given how long it took them to flesh out their lenses.

Thank you for sharing! I think it looks promising! I too though don't really enjoy the high shutter speed look. I would be interested in seeing this in more challenging conditions, like with faster camera movement.

What exactly is the difference between third parties being able to make EF lenses but not RF ones? I mean, I understand it's because they really want to push their RF lenses, but were they OK with companies making EF lenses solely because of the age of the mount? And are the Viltrox's of the world REALLY a threat and cutting into their business THAT much?

Honestly the more I use this camera the more I love it. After filming a couple events I'm really impressed. I am considering selling my entire M43 kit, or at least most of it, to get another one. I'll maybe keep the GH5 and the 12-35mm and 35-100mm, and sell the rest. I really like the sooc colors I get using the natural profile. Sometimes I will tweak it just a little, but most of the time it looks really good without any kind of corrections. I'm glad that more people are taking note of the S5. I really don't know that you can beat it for the price.

I think, for its price, the R7 is a very compelling camera for a lot of people. I think people arguing that the price is too high are being a bit silly. Given it's capabilities I think the price is fair, even if Canon keeps doing Canon things (🔨). The rolling shutter is a deal breaker for me, as I film fast action sports, and hearing inconsistent results about overheating would make me nervous to use for a lot of my work, but I think it's very good for a lot of people's needs, especially if you're not filming any fast movement. The crops and stuff are definitely a bummer, but they're limitations that are relatively easy to work around.

Not that I want them to post less on the forums, since their posts are some of my favorites, however there are certain things that @herein2020and @MrSMWpost that honestly would be worthy of being on the main site, if that ever becomes a focus. I'm not sure if it gets more traffic than the forum, but their in depth write-ups about the equipment they use, why they use it, etc. are really good, and would compliment your articles well. I don't know if they'd be interested, obviously, but it's just something I thought of while reading @herein2020's R7 post. They are both quite thoughtful writers.

I love when you're excited about something. It's infectious.

Better value, I think. I love my MacBook Pro, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure if it's worth the 3x or whatever extra I paid for it, especially when I am using it at home with an external monitor a lot anyway!

I think it's very much still relevant. I think it's one of the better values out there. I love my MacBook Pro M1 Pro but there are times I wish I'd gone the Mini route.

IBIS to me is meant for handheld work. I don't use it in place of a tripod or monopod. IBIS gives me freedom that a monopod or shoulder rig doesn't even moving around. If I'm not in a rush, or need a static shot, I'll always go with a tripod or monopod. But if I'm literally running and gunning, like I do for weddings or my sports work, good IBIS is so vital to getting good looking footage.

To me IBIS is a God send because my kind of work is fast paced and as such I need to match that pace. IBIS gives me a fighting chance to get stabilized shots filming unpredictable movement, like you'll get in pro-wrestling. The rest though I agree fully on.

One of my favorite things this forum has done is the video contest from a few years back. It was nice to SEE what people were capable of, even when using cheap cameras. So much of this forum is people talking about specs.