newfoundmass

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.

I still believe there is no better value out there than the Lumix S5 on the used market. You'll be amazed at what images you can get even with the cheap 20-60 kit lens. There is just something really, really nice about that camera's image. I prefer it over my S5II. The GH5 is a great camera too, even today, but it's worth spending the extra to get the S5 for the better low light. That's a lot harder because there are so many options. As a Lumix shooter I'd still go that route and get S5II bodies and the Sigma 24-70mm for all of them, but there are no shortage of options if you aren't limited by budget. I still prefer to shoot as light as possible and are familiar with their cameras, so that's my primary reason for choosing Lumix, but you really can't go wrong with anything available today. Another hard one, honestly. There are just so many options. This is probably a weird choice but I think I'd still go with the original Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. I still love that image very much.

I am not suggesting they do it because it'd kill M43 dead and it'd mean starting from scratch, but they could in theory release 4/3 sensor cameras and lenses that would cover them for L-Mount. Again, not suggesting it, but I also can't say that I wouldn't be intrigued. I miss the small M43 lenses, but it's a really hard sell to re-invest in M43 and have two different systems. I too also always thought it was weird that they didn't have a M43 crop mode on their full frame lenses. Not that I would use it a ton, but there are times when I would (that extra reach would be wonderful) and there really isn't a reason NOT to include it.

I definitely don't fault anyone who decides this isn't the life for them and moves on to other ventures (like driving a train, which honestly is a pretty cool job I think!); for some it's the right move to just go back to working on passion projects and working a "real job." I guess what bums me out is that many people don't realize there are alternatives or just can't fathom living a more modest life as a means of being able to continue what they love to do. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who appreciates a more modest lifestyle in exchange for being able to continue to do what I enjoy doing for a living. I think the trade off is more than worth it, personally.

Exactly this! I don't want to come off as though I am trashing my friends in the industry who complain or who had to move back home after moving to the big city with big dreams, but they all had the same things in common: leasing vehicles that were way too expensive, getting apartments that were too big (and expensive) for them, didn't want to take jobs that they didn't think they'd enjoy, constantly spending money (often on credit) to purchase new gear they didn't need, etc. Just unnecessary spending. They don't fully understand or appreciate the freedom this job can give them if they just changed their outlook. I too would love if every job I took was interesting and tickled my creativity, but if I'm pretty lucky being able live comfortably with low living costs and no real boss. I'll take it over office or labor work anytime!

I don't think you're part of the problem, really. Like you said, if you weren't doing it there's a good chance it wouldn't be done at all. And the truth is, for a lot of work, "good enough" is just that: good enough. For better or worse, today you can show an average business owner something crappy put together using the AI in CapCut or whatever and their socks will be blown off. So doing something better than that, even if it's not something that you consider your best work or are even that proud of, is fine, at least in my eyes. The tiny house movement is kind of what inspired me, honestly. I could never live in one of those, too small, but a nice mobile home with 1200 square feet? That's enough to have a decent sized bedroom, an office for my video work/gear, and then a good sized living room and kitchen. I've always been someone that prizes function over everything else. My 15 year old vehicle? It ain't pretty but it does everything I need it to do and then some. Mobile home? I own it outright, have low property taxes, and it's more than a decent enough place to rest my head and work out of. These are things I value over everything. When you temper your expectations, re: where you live, what kind of house you live in, what kind of clothes you wear, what kind of car you drive, etc. you become less impacted by industry changes. We could all, as human beings, stand to be a lot more economical. Almost everything in my home is used, from my furniture (all of it except my bed, my one luxury) to my pots, silverware and dishes. It not only was cheap, but it helped create a lot less waste. Most of my clothes? Second hand when I can find things my size, except for my underwear and socks! So if next year another pandemic happens, I'm pretty much in a position where I can survive that without too much hardship financially. Kinda off topic I suppose, but I do think people would benefit from looking at things differently so that maybe you don't have to quit that dream job if you learn to live more economical. Living on a budget doesn't mean living in poverty!

It was something people should've seen coming a long time ago. So many folks moved to these larger cities, in part because of the amount of work there was, not realizing how oversaturated it'd quickly get. I know so many people who moved to Nashville, Atlanta, Portland, Austin, and other cities thinking they'd do great there. And at first they did pretty good. They were booked up solid doing music videos and social media content, among other things. But more and more "creatives" moved to these areas, and then businesses started taking social media content in-house, so jobs dried up. A lot of them ended up doing jobs they thought they'd left behind (weddings!), moved to another city (where the same thing happened), or moved back home. Video jobs will always exist, to some extent, it's just a matter of being in the right place and being willing to take jobs that you don't like/enjoy. Those folks who thought they'd moved on from having to film weddings might need to start doing jobs like that again. Maybe being the camera op for the local cable access channel filming school board meetings might be necessary. It's not glamorous or fun, but it's work. I never stopped doing jobs like that. $50 for two hours of work filming a school board meeting or a city council meeting isn't exciting, but it helps pay the bills. I live in a mobile home. It's bought and paid for. It's a nice one in a nice community. I pay a lot fee of $340 a month. Even if I had a mortgage it'd cost a lot less than an apartment even with the lot fee. It's not glamorous, but I own it and it's affordable living. From doing public access work alone my lot fee is paid for every month. Pre-covid I'd considered selling my mobile home and buying a house, since I was doing really good. I don't care about the stigma or prejudices people have towards mobile homes and their communities, but owning a house and property where I wasn't restricted by the mobile home park's rules appealed to me. At the end of the day though I decided against it because I was able to live comfortably. If I'd gone ahead with it though COVID would've killed me financially even worse than it did. I was able to weather it because of how cheaply I'm able to live. My work would need to take an huge hit before my lifestyle became unsustainable. Making this job work for you might require changing how you live and being willing to take jobs that are "below" you. It's a hard pill to swallow, since we all got into this because of our desire to create and be creative, but it's no different than everyone else who has a job that they dislike. I hope that makes sense haha

Honestly it SHOULD be a better career option than shooting professional video with RED. People's lives and safety depend on train operators. --- In my area, which is mostly rural, I am offered more jobs than I need/want. There aren't tons of videographers in my neck of the woods, so there is a lot less competition. In an area like Portland, Oregon it doesn't surprise me that it is becoming harder though, especially in specialized areas like drone videography which I think is what this guy specialized in. Anyone can buy a DJI drone and get impressive visuals with almost no skill, as the drones do a lot of the work for you. I've seen all this before. I started in video when I was 12 years old. Working in video was an expensive endeavor and very specialized back then. Things changed when everything went digital and all of the sudden anyone could buy a $500 miniDV camera and a copy of Pinnacle Studio for $99 at Staples or Best Buy. I used to get hired in my teen years to film and edit birthday parties, recitals, sports games, and other stuff people wanted to have filmed for their own collection. I used to go to sports games and film things myself, then sell VHS tapes of the games for parents to buy! It was great and paid for all my equipment! But everything changed once video became less specialized and Dads could buy a camera and editing software to do it all themselves. Soon every computer came with editing software, like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. Then YouTube became a thing! Then everyone had a video camera in their pocket when phones started adding cameras! All of these things, to some extent or another, impacted our industry and has continued to. With each step more and more folks found themselves either out of work or needing to adapt. As new things pop up we'll continue to need to adapt. It's not unique to just us, though. I know someone who became a millionaire off of building websites who now mostly gets work specializing in helping folks with Wordpress and Squarespace websites. I know a print shop and marketing owner who used to be able to employ 6 full time people who now works alone because many local businesses have taken marketing in house since they can just get one of their younger employees to figure out how to use Canva. It's happening really everywhere. All you can do is adapt. Not everyone though is going to be able to, especially the more specialized their work is cause once that becomes less specialized there isn't a lot you can do about it.

It really is an excellent lens. I use it for pro-wrestling around ringside, because if it gets damaged it's not a big loss since they are so affordable but I also don't feel like I am sacrificing image quality by using it.

I didn't see em at B&H. I see they sell them directly from their site though. Interesting. I think I will wait for B&H or Adorama though to carry them before I take the plunge, as it'll be easier to return them if necessary, etc.

Yeah, the only affordable third party lenses are the manual primes that companies like TTArtisan have made for RF, E, and L mount. From what I've seen they are pretty good, too, but even those are a little pricey when you consider that the TTArtisan 50mm f/1.4 is only a hundred dollars less than the Lumix 50mm f1.8 when it's on sale. I think it's probably worth spending the extra $120 to get the Lumix with auto focus even though it's a little slower. Hopefully Viltrox, Meike and others that released auto focusing lenses for E-mount start releasing them for L-mount. I think it'd be a kick in the arm.

They really are great and well thought out. Love that they are all the same size. They definitely were thinking of video shooters when they made them. Honestly I've been impressed with every L-mount Lumix lens I've used. Even the 20-60 kit lens is excellent. Easily the best kit lens I've ever used. I have yet to use any Sigma lenses though, as until I got the S5II X I didn't think they were worth getting because I'd heard the auto focus with contrast detect auto focus cameras wasn't as good.