newfoundmass

Azden also has something similar: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1621121-REG/azden_smx_30v_30v_stereo_mono_mixable_video.html I've never used it, but I've heard it uses the same (or similar) shotgun capsule as my Azden SGM-250CX which I'm quite fond of and have had for nearly 10 years. A lot of the mics mentioned in this post could fit in your pocket very easily. The other thing is, you can get "decent" (decent being subjective, obviously) sound with a $100 (even less on the used market) stereo mic like the Tascam TM-2X and a $49 supercardioid mic like Deity V-Mic D4. You could fit both of those mics in the same pocket. You could also just use something like a Zoom H1 as a stereo mic, mounting it to the top of and plugging it into your camera. Basically there are options that fit within almost any budget that don't take up a ton of room. And if you buy from a reputable dealer that allows returns, you can always order something, try it out and return it if it's not what you're looking for.

A shotgun mic would be better to pick up a specific sound in that scenario, while still getting some of the other sounds around it. A stereo mic, like the Rode or the Sennheiser, will do a better job of capturing the environment as a whole. Let's say you're on a busy street and there's a man playing music on the corner. With the Deity you'll be able to focus in more on the music, with less street noise in the recording. With a stereo mic you'll pick up the street noise a lot more when focusing on the musician. In nature, replace the musician with a waterfall or stream. You'll be able to focus in on the noise the waterfall or stream makes, but won't hear the other noises (such as birds chirping) as well. With a stereo mic you'll capture more of the sound around you, at the cost of being able to focus in on specific noises. Ideally you'll have multiple microphones for whatever situation you'll be in. Kind of like lenses. Some mics can also do both, or at least say they can.

It boils down to preference and what sounds you want to capture. I personally would go for something like the Sennheiser MKE 440. I really don't think a supercardioid is the ideal mic to pic up full sounding ambient noise in nature. If you wanted to do more specific sound recording in the forest then that's different.

If I'm outdoors standing on a cliff and want to capture the sounds of the forest around me, I definitely wouldn't go the supercardioid route. While not an identical scenario, when I was looking for mics for my pro-wrestling work, I went with stereo ones that could better pick up the spectators and arena atmosphere. My beloved supercardioid mic (the Azden SGM-250CX, a very underrated mic IMO) did a poor job of it, because it mostly picked up what was going on in the ring itself, which for me is actually a negative because it picked up the wrestlers talking to each other during the matches. Scratch mics are generally mics that pick up audio that isn't used in the final edit but only as a reference. It doesn't really apply to your question, I'm not sure why he brought it up. Yes, but you really don't need 32-bit for the uses you've described. Simply plugging a microphone into the GH7 and setting your levels will be more than enough for what you're talking about doing. I use 32-bit float audio because I deal with situations that are unpredictable, where audio will suddenly get way louder out of nowhere so I need to be able to bring it down in post. For what you're doing, you really won't have that problem. A simple stereo mic that you plug into your GH7 is more than enough, and will save you hundreds of dollars in buying an adapter you don't need to achieve what you're talking about.

Unless you need 32 bit float audio or are using an XLR microphone you don't need the XLR adapter. There are a lot of different mics you can go with to get good ambient sound, with different configurations. The Stereo VideoMic for example has an XY configuration, while the Sennheiser MKE 440 has a more directional dual shotgun configuration. Which is better comes down to preference and what you're looking for.

That has just as much to do with bitrate than resolution. No one said that there isn't a difference between shooting 4K and FHD, merely that there is not much difference when watching them on the televisions most of us have, at the distance most of us watch them at. I've been filming in 4K instead of FHD for nearly 10 years at this point for a reason. But 4K displays were mostly a gimmick. While most people now have them almost all content watched on them is FHD because most people have thus far decided that 4K isn't worth the premium they want you to pay (example: Netflix's most popular tier by far is the Standard tier which is only FHD.) That's why I bring it up: you're already worried about 8K and whether or not 6K will look good on it, when 4K hasn't even become the primary resolution in which people consume content and still, most of us don't even have big enough 4K displays to appreciate 4K content all that much more than we do FHD. LOL. Man, 5' is way too close to be watching an 85" TV whether it's 8K or 4K. Seriously, don't ever do that. But to answer your bigger question: 6K will look fine on an 8K... and so will FHD and 4K, assuming you buy a reasonable TV size for your room and seating.

No, they won't look soft. You'll never own an 8K screen big enough to truly see much difference between 4K and 8K, just as most folks don't really see that significant of a difference between 1080p and 4K screens, in part because the majority of the content consumed today is still 1080p. All my TVs are 55 inch 4K. To see the difference between 4K and FHD I need to be uncomfortably close. 10 feet away I can't really tell much of a difference, and neither can most people. They'll push 8K on us to get people to unnecessarily "upgrade" but it'll be even less necessary than the switch from FHD to 4K.

Must be just a Windows thing for now. I notice that thread is 4 months old.

I appreciate your optimistic take, but that's not how most people look at it, nor should it be. A camera you purchased for $2000 a year or two ago should not be dead already, and it's value on the used market should not be 1/4 of the price just because the manufacturer decided to discontinue it and run a fire sale. I'd have a very bad taste in my mouth if I'd bought the GH6. My GH5 was nearly 6 years old when I sold it. 2017 to 2023. No amount of spin is going to make a GH6 user happy that the camera they spent $2000 on is selling for $550 brand new with lens.

He paid like 1/4 retail cost haha. If I'd bought one a year ago at full retail cost I'd be pretty upset that my camera was discontinued and now has almost no value on the used market to help pay for a GH7 because they're now available for new for $550 with kit lens. That's about what I got paid for my used GH5 about a year ago.

First: I'd be pissed if I bought a GH6. I get why they released it, people (including myself) were getting impatient, but discontinuing it (thus killing the resale price) is a pretty big blow to a user base that already saw Lumix release better cameras almost immediately after it's release. With all that said: I think the GH7 is a pretty darn good release. If I was still in M43 I'd be getting 3 of them. It's honestly the first time I've regretted getting rid of all my M43 lenses, as even now I think two of them would go great with my S5II X. I miss the small lenses quite a bit, especially on show days. The only thing I'm a bit bummed about is the battery life. I hope there's a way they can push a firmware update to make the new audio adapter work with the S5II X. When I upgrade my b and c cams they'll probably be S5II bodies because I've already got the lenses for them, but I'll be damned if m43 didn't make me think about dipping my toe back in.

In my travels Sony has been by far more common than Canon. That wasn't the case 10 years ago. From Chicago to Vermont, FX cameras are king and it's not even close. People i know that used to have C100s either got R bodies or switched to Sony because Canon took too long to bring out a successor.

I know so few people that actually own/use these Canon cinema cameras. Everyone I know has switched to Sony. Those that didn't have pretty much ditched the cinema line altogether and gone with one of Canon's mirrorless options. I'd be curious to see how many cinema cameras they actually sell these days.

Yes, Panasonic's lens options are a weakness. The primes they have are excellent and geared towards video shooters in that they are roughly the same size and weight, have the same filter size, have minimal focus breathing, etc. but they are bigger than their competitors. They are more expensive than Canon's f1.8 primes, which are under $300 and much smaller, but the build quality isn't nearly as good as the Panasonic lenses. Sony has a lot of options, with their sub $600 primes being pretty small but they're also F1.8, f2.5, and f2.8. Panasonic should really look into doing budget primes along the lines of what they have for m43 (14mm f2.5, 20mm f1.7, 25mm f1.7, 30mm f1/7, 42.5mm f1.7) A bunch of compact f2.5 or F2/8 lenses for under $300 would be appealing.

We're all aware of the exploitation of people and countries resources... But you're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone that Panasonic has honey potted a bunch of camera nerds with prostitutes so that they'll shill their cameras. I assure you, 98% of them only need a free trip and free swag to do it. Hell, half of them will do it if they get a nice email from some PR person pretending they're interested in their opinions and feedback.

We live in a bizarre world where a large chunk of the middle class and low income folks think the guy that literally shits on gold toilets cares about them.

My guess would be ProRes RAW

🤣 I don't think you need to buy YouTubers hookers to get them to go along with the corporate PR. They've already proven to be much cheaper to buy off.

I'm surprised they'd just straight up discontinue the GH6. The GH7 will need to have some really killer features to stand out, I think.

Cowards.

Curtis posted this and I think it's a much more measured view on what is at play when it comes to the current YouTube landscape and reviews. He spent the last 10 weeks making videos on only things he paid for himself and this is his thoughts on it. It was done based on his own thoughts and curiosity, not out of bitterness because he wasn't invited on a trip. As far as YouTubers go I feel Curtis is one of the more transparent ones and is overall very thoughtful.

I don’t think the ad revenue argument stands up to any scrutiny to be honest. Have a look at the views for all of the S9 videos. YouTube pays what these days, $2-3K per million views? Ad revenue is decided on a lot of different factors, none of which YouTube really shares with us (or at least not me.) I'll randomly earn $20 dollars in revenue one month for a 10 year old video that got a dozen views. Meanwhile a video that gets a couple thousand views will make half that. Ad revenue isn't bringing in the money that it used to, but it DOES still generate passive income. It may only be a couple thousand dollars a month, but for many folks that might be enough to pay for their mortgage or rent.

You cover the loss of earnings like you would for any vacation, except you generate revenue from this trip through sponsors and ad revenue based on the content you make from it. I've traveled all over the United States but I had virtually no time to actually enjoy it. There are cities I've been to literally four dozen times that I've seen very little of, because I had MAYBE 2 or 3 hours of leisure time if I was lucky and the rest were 12+ hour days in a venue doing production set up and filming. Most of my time not at work was spent in a car, hotel, or airport. I guarantee these YouTubers got more time to check out Japan during one of these trips than I got to check out Philly, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. in the dozens of times each that I was paid to be there to work. Here is an example of a work trip I did regularly: Early flight out of Burlington to Chicago on Friday. Land, get picked up, and drive immediately to the venue for 10AM, only stopping to get food. Spend the day setting up. Event starts at 7PM. Film the event (4 hours or so). Tear down. Leave venue around 1AM. Get food. Drive to Detroit. Go to hotel and sleep a few hours. Go to the venue for 10AM, only stopping to get food. Spend the day setting up. Event starts at 7PM. Film the event (4 hours or so.) Tear down. Get food, then drive to airport for early flight back to Burlington. Get home late Sunday. Edit the events. Then repeat the entire process the next weekend. None of those trips afforded me the opportunity to check out local markets, bars, or watch sunsets surrounded by postcard scenery while enjoying engaging conversations with my colleagues. 😉

I still have my OG pocket from the great sale of 2014!

It's all branding and marketing, including this video from Gerald. I'm surprised so many people buy into it. Look, the dude humble bragged about how he takes these trips and then just hangs out instead of filming anything, but he gets most passionate when he starts talking about how he wasn't invited on the last Japan trip for the Lumix S5II and now this trip, with Lumix directly telling him that they just didn't think he'd like the camera. Most of the rest of his video was just acknowledging what we've all been saying for years and what Gerald himself has benefited/profited from, he just thinks it's an ethical problem because he's no longer on the list of people Lumix wants to play nice with. There's absolutely truth in what he is saying, but let's be clear: if Gerald cared about ethical camera reviews he'd still be getting cameras from a local camera shop to test instead of having relationships with these companies. If he'd still kept doing that he'd never had been able to make a living doing YouTube though. Did he really ever think these companies viewed him as anything other than a mark they could exploit to market their products to people or was he just happy to be part of the game until other companies not named Sony decided to allocate their marketing resources to other reviewers? Today it's easy to put Panasonic on blast. He sees the writing on the wall. He really has nothing to lose, his channel has predominantly been Sony focused for the last several years anyway and, honestly, it wouldn't shock me if this marks a change in his channel in general as the YouTube camera reviewer bubble seems to have burst or bottomed out for a lot of people. Views are down even on his Sony videos. If nothing else he has seemingly successfully branded himself as the lone moral voice in the camera/gear space, as far as YouTube is concerned.