Wishes for 10 years on from the birth of mirrorless

[sanveer]

 

I guess while this Site is called Eoshd.com, it was the GH2 (and its various hacks) that really got things going, and the various models of M43 cameras that got most indie filmmakers excited around here.

The Sony A7iii seems to have ruined the party for a lot of people, way more than one could imagine. And the below $2000 price tag has suddenly made things harder to sell, for almost everyone (Including Sony's own models that can be easily replaced by the A7iii, due to its price advantage, and plethora of superlat8ve features for the price).

It was the 10th Anniversary of the birth of the M43 and Mirrorless format, last week. While the GH5 and GH5s, and the Olympus OMD 1D are great cameras, their (former) $1999 price seems a lot, especially for Olympus.

What all areas do you think Panasonic and Olympus need to work on, to push the Mirrorless advantage for Mirrorless, now that Nikon is also finally crashing the party? 

Suggestions could be anything from the high bitrate (with no noticeable advantage except in very heavy grading) to the low dynamic range of VLog (between 1.5-2 stops below that of the sensor's in RAW), to the Lack of 14-abit RAW to lack of PDAF (on the Panasonic) etc.

 

[jonpais]

6 minutes ago, sanveer said:

Suggestions could be anything from the high bitrate (with no noticeable advantage except in very heavy grading) [...]

I don’t really find myself missing 10-bit anymore. But I don’t do chroma keying, power windows or any of that kind of stuff. 

Electronic ND filters? ProRes RAW? 

[sanveer]

1 minute ago, jonpais said:

I don’t really find myself missing 10-bit anymore. But I don’t do chroma keying, power windows or any of that kind of stuff. 

Ok, interesting. Especially considering its like 1/4th the bitrate and 10-bit 4-2-2 vs 8-bit 4-2-0. 

 

Dave Dugdale did a video where he pushed the A6500 (I think that was the Sony model) against the Panasonic GH5, and he didn't notice very serious advantages of the Panasonic over the Sony. Also the 400mbps bitrate is just unnecessarily demanding on the space (and processors and cards). The XAVC codec seems to really have some secret sauce.

Plus the lower forceful limitation on dynamic range in VLog L seems to be a bad idea? 

[jonpais]

I don’t recall which camera it was either. I believe Matthew Scott collaborated with him on that too, and he’s a wiz with DaVinci and Edius. 

The savings on storage and how my iMac cuts through the XAVC files like butter are definite plusses.

[newfoundmass]

Auto focus is a necessity, not so much for me but for those that have become obsessed with it. The GH5S showed that good low light is possible, and even the GH5 showed that low light capabilities are improving over previous cameras, so that's not a major issue these days, but narrowing the gap in low light performance is obviously something they need to continue with. 

I think exploring a APS-C sized sensor might be something they should look more into. With adapters it can get you very close to full frame, which is another thing people seem to becoming more and more obsessed with.

Overall though I think Panasonic has done a good job developing the system. Nearly 2 years after release I think the GH5 is still worth every penny and is still the only camera in its class capable of doing so many things. 

[Cinegain]

I really love M43. My first interchangeable lens camera was the GH2 after having seen the Philip Bloom Christmas Special and Zacuto Shootouts where it punched well above its weight. I had considered the Canon 600D before, but I settled on M43, of which a big reason as well was that it was mirrorless and had a 'tiny' sensor, meaning lenses could be kept really compact, which was and still is a big thing if you're traveling around (and I'd rather have lenses be small, than shaving a few mm off a camera body, something I didn't understand about the APS-C E-mount line-up that had it all wrong (and then some)). Naturally progressed with the E-M1, BMPCC, GH4, G7. Then previously we had seen built-in sensor stabilization, but regarding Panasonic cameras it was really only used for stills. The GX80 changed that and with the tiny kit zoom (that still fools me with its ring, that I keep want to focus with (it only has a zoomring)) or Leica 15mm f/1.7 had the almost exact same formfactor of the premium compact LX100. The G80 gave you a mini GH5 before the latter was actually out and about. Still a very awesome hybrid camera, I doubt we'll see such a good value package again. Now the flagship stills shooter is the G9, which I have as well. It's a pretty awesome camera and does a lot of the basic video stuff as well, sport that huge EVF and extra push of hybrid IS. Of course I had to get the GH5 that ultimately was a video production beast, with all the bells and whistles. That's what I love about Panasonic. Where else are you getting a camera body with weather sealing, dual cardslot, vari-angle touchscreen, fullsize HDMI, complete audio interface, great batterylife, nice buttons/dials/joystick & customization options? Then internally, some of the best sensor stabilization, 4K60p, 10-bit options, limited rolling shutter, V-Log L, HLG, anamorphic mode, all the focus and exposure aids and overlays, incl. like waveforms/vectorscope. It's pretty dang crazy!

I doubt you can fault the camera bodies or the system itself. There's so many lenses to choose from in all kinds of sizes, budgets and quality. And the shallow flange allows for adapting third party lenses easily (the E-mount is better though). So... as a system I believe in it a whole lot. But it has gotten a lot of hate for its 4/3" sensor. Cameras were never all that great. But the A7S really rollercoastered things up. Pushing a GH4 beyond ISO800 was a crime against noisemanity and damn how convenient would it be to have a clean ISO1600, 3200, 6400? Dynamic range was never really up-to-snuff either. Always had this contrasty look with blown-out highlights and crushed blacks. Colors tempted to go orangey. But you have to admit that the recent developments are hella impressive on the post-GH4 generation cameras. What people are complaining the most about now is C-AF... yeah, I feel like Panasonic placed a bet on the wrong horse going with depth from de-focus. They should just admit their wrongdoings and change things up with the next gen. But it has to be said... C-AF never was great and it certainly wasn't as great as it is now. Yet... we always made it work. Think DualPixel AF has really spoiled a lot of people. Of course I applaud anything that's extra on a camera, the more the merrier and can be super practical at times (e.g. on a gimbal stabilizer), but to me it certainly is no dealbreaker. ISO sensitivity and noise performance is getting there. I think colors are about where they should be as well. Dynamic range is I think still one of the biggest issues with these cameras, although highlight roll-off and recovery has become much better already. One other thing that bothers people about the MFT system... the depth of field isn't as shallow as you'd get with fullframe. Well, that's a given. But honestly, we've got so many epic lenses and there a focal reducers. It's at a point that criticism is more like bokehwhoring. And you don't always need to have silky and creamy backdrops. Give your scenes some goddang context. People have become way too obsessed with blurry backgrounds what I'm concerned. Get any nice f/1.4 Sigma lens on MFT and you shouldn't need to wish for much more.

What would I like to see in the future? Well, it's healthy for the system if it got some more love from other people. So, it would be great to see people loving C-AF with it, rather than hating on it. Dynamic range and further improvement on color and sensitivity, combined with sensor stabilization is something I'm personally looking forward to. Not sure how far along they are with the organic sensor and global shutter developments, but such implementations would be interesting to see. Would also be interesting if they could work in some kind of ND-trick. Maybe set-up photosites as such that they have multiple base levels and never allow to clip or crush data (no need to protect highlights or shadows, get 'em both!). That they can drop sensitivity like an ND filter, a low and clean ISO band (ISO8-128 or some shit) if you will, without the need of optics. There's also still the possibility to pull something like we've seen implemented on the JVC GY-LS300, pairing the MFT mount up with an APS-C sensor behind it.

So... I don't think MFT is done for quite yet. I actually think it has improved significantly over the years and is an amazing piece of kit. There's already very little to complain about, so the future must be completely nuts. I do not care that the A7III is coming in at just below $2k for the camera body. If anything it will no longer have it make sense for Sony themselves to bother with the A6x00 series, that keeps camera bodies so small there's a lot of problems I have with them and neglect a dedicated line-up of compact lenses for the system (forcing you into mostly using fullframe E-mount lenses). Why would you get a 1799 A6700 when you can get an A7III for 200 bucks more? Because the crop works like a teleconverter? Well, you can use these FF cameras in S35 crop mode and the sensitivity and detail nowadays hardly gives the dedicated APS-C sensor an edge there, if any at all. Nikon and Camera mirrorless systems will likely only be fullframe and hella expensive, so don't just count me in there either. I like MFT. To me the G9/GH5/GH5S/E-M1mkII are the finest camera bodies on the market, that makes it fun and easy to shoot with. Mostly I love the fact that you have the option to keep lenses really dang small. Maybe it's the Laowa 7.5mm f/2 MFT, the Leica 15mm f/1.7, Olympus 17mm f/1.8, Lumix 20mm f/1.7, 42.5mm f/1.7 or Zhongyi 25mm f/0.95... that's just so awesome. I wouldn't be getting that with the A7III. At the same time of course I could opt for bigger and more quality lenses, that's just another option you have. Olympus PRO, Sigma, Leica, some really good stuff can be had. And you can frankenrig things up as you see fit. Throw on any lens you want and make full use of the sensor stabilization! Throw on cages, rails and have at it. I don't know, personally I haven't lost excitement for the system. And there's not just Panasonic and Olympus anymore. There's DJI, Z Cam, YI Tech, et cetera putting their own spin on things. We certainly haven't seen the last of it! Most of all I'm excited now for the BMPCC4K. How awesome is that going to be? Cinema MFT FTW! ?

[ntblowz]

Just got a gx7 with 14-140 f3.5, the grip on gx7 is more comfortable to hold than gx85, wonder why Pana went backward with it?

The lens is just much smaller on M43 vs other bigger format. I have to get a bigger bag for A7III since my small bag cant hold it anymore with bigger lens.

 

 

[Robert Collins]

M43 offers both limitations and advantages for video. However, their C-AF for video is totally unacceptable when compared to the competition and if they dont sort this out properly, I think the will continue to lose market share. I realize a lot of people here dont use or care about af for video but the average hybrid buyer will take it if he can get it. Panasonic has absolutely no excuses - they were the first company into mirrorless.

I dont see a future for Olympus in the camera business. They are forecasting to lose US$60m this year on sales of US$600m (their 8th loss in the last 10 years.) To put this in perspective - Olympus will lose US$150 on each of the 400,000 ILCs it expects to sell this year. This is not a business - it is a charity.

Sony has really stirred things up by releasing the A7iii - with such a strong feature set - at US$2000. They pretty obviously did this to position themselves pretty aggressively against the new competition they expect from Canon and Nikon. However all the other mirrorless manufacturers have been moving relentlessly upmarket for the last few years. According to CIPA the average shipped price of a mirrorless ILC has doubled in the past 6 years (while the average price of a DSLR has increased 20%). But a side effect of Sony's US$2k FF is that it somewhat pulls the rug out under the US$1500-US$2000+ market for ILCs with smaller sensors (including Sony's soon to be released a6700.) Still photographers tend to be sensor size snobs.

Meanwhile I think Canon will continue to do well at the bottom end of the market, because it is the only manufacturer who focuses there.

Mirrorless made up 36% of ILC shipments in the first half of 2018 - good chance it will be over 50% in 2019.

[jonpais]

The a7 III and X-T* bodies are both smaller than GH5 the last time I checked. Coupled with the best lenses in the system - think the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 or Olympus Pro 45mm f/1.2 (two of my preferred focal lengths) - the Panasonic is a beast. In fact, for whatever reason (weight distribution?) it’s easier for me to balance the Sony on the original payload-challenged Zhiyun Crane v.1.

And don’t even get me started on adapters for micro four thirds. After visiting the chiropractor, I swore I’d never shoot with the Sigma 18-35/Metabones again! ?

The G85 was ideal size-wise. I loved that camera. Ergonomically, just about perfect. However, its size advantage became a liability when mounted on a tripod or gimbal with any but the smallest (slowest) lenses.

The 23mm, 35mm and 50mm f/2 Fujinons (f/1.4 m43 equiv.) are not only tiny and optically superb, but also exquisitely built. Paired with the X-T2 or or X-T20, it doesn’t get much stealthier than that.

I’ve said several times it’s time for Sony to stop concentrating on f/1.4 and bring out a bunch of affordable compact FE f/2.8 primes. Many photographers no longer even feel that f/4 is just for novices (thinking backwards, f/2 m43 equiv.).

While small is nice and all, aside from sports and nature shooters, who require ultra-long telephoto lenses, not everyone agrees that compactness is the distinguishing virtue of mirrorless. For one thing, manufacturers have all been beefing up their pro/enthusiast lineup. The shallow flange distance to the sensor is perhaps its chief advantage, particularly when it comes to lens design. That’s an oversimplification, but I’m already out of my depth here! (reason being, I’ve never shot with a DSLR!) ?

I held off purchasing Sony for years because of overheating, record time limits, weak codecs, screen dimming, overheating, convoluted menus, lack of touch screen, poor battery life and crazy color science, not to mention the paucity of lenses.

Most of those issues are now thankfully things of the past.

Nevertheless, there remains no doubt Panasonic is still leagues ahead of Sony in terms of videocentric features and Sony would do well to take a few pages out of the household appliance juggernaut’s book. ?

In the end, I suppose it’s all about the sensor: and I’m still astounded each and every time I throw those luscious XAVC clips on the timeline.

[Robert Collins]

58 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Nevertheless, there remains no doubt Panasonic is still leagues ahead of Sony in terms of videocentric features and Sony would do well to take a few pages out of the household appliance juggernaut’s book. ?

 

I think the A7iii v say GH5 is a tough comparison. The A7iii is a hybrid camera (which I would loosely define as a stills camera with the videocentric features thrown in for free) while the GH5 is a videocentric camera where you pay a considerable premium for its video features.

It is pretty obvious that the biggest trend in mirrorless is the convergence of stills and video. Video is an important kicker for hybrid purchasers but isnt something that many want to pay a premium for. Which brings us to the A7siii which is clearly a videocentric camera line (especially as it will almost certainly add nothing for stills over the A7iii and be priced at, at least a US$1500 premium.)

Personally I think that Sony should either rethink the A7s line (or possibly scrap it altogether.) By rethink - start with the implicit assumption they are selling a video camera. So make the body bigger (videoguys tend to like that or at least accept it.) That would make heat dissipation far better and leave room for better and more robust external connections (such as a fullsized HDMI.) It might also leave room/scope for a variable electronic ND which is something of a holy grail feature for this sort of product.

Of course that would cannibalize their cinema line up but I think that is going to happen in any case when the hybrid market essentially has still photographers subsidizing video features.

[newfoundmass]

I've come to appreciate the smaller camera. I used to dislike it and scoffed at the idea of shooting video with a DSLR style camera, but I've come to embrace it and now prefer it. I think it makes more sense for Sony to make their design, hardware and software more efficient instead of beefing it up significantly. I can't imagine they don't have the capabilities to do it. It also makes no sense to cannibalize their higher end line to that extent. 

The A7 line is confusing, particularly the A7iii given how great it is for video. It kinda took some of the A7Siii's thunder; that camera is gonna really need to be a home run.

[fuzzynormal]

11 hours ago, jonpais said:

Electronic ND filters?

Oh, I'd love that. 

[kye]

@Cinegain - great love letter to m43 post.. ???

You covered most aspects and I agree with your analysis on most things.  I think that the A7iii, GH5, and the Pocket2 are going to occupy special places in people's equipment lists for a long time yet.  I'm looking forward to the Pocket2 vs ARRI videos that are inevitable (Potato Jet YT channel I'm looking at you!) because when I think about the differences between compressed video and RAW video and then I look at the A7iii screenshots that @jonpais is posting I'm struggling to imagine there will be a huge difference between the Pocket2 and high-end cinema cameras.  Certainly nothing to justify the price difference when looking at the images anyway - I'm aware that high-end cinema cameras offer a huge amount more than just good images.

I definitely don't represent the average user, and I feel caught in the middle of these three cameras as each offers something I would genuinely love.  The A7iii represents the best compromises for me personally but I'm not at all against smaller sensors.  I currently have the XC10 and in many ways it is the perfect camera.  It has 30+minute recording times, a reliable thermal solution, really nice 4K with a high bit-rate (305Mbit), long battery life, a flexible 24-240mm equivalent lens with solid IS, c-log, built-in NDs, ergonomics DSLRs can only dream about, etc.  The only reason I'm considering upgrading is that it doesn't have the 'look' I want with a shallow enough DoF.  I completely agree with you about bokehmania being a passing fad and you say that no-one really needs anything better than f1.4 (which IIRC is 2.8 FF equivalent?) and I agree, in fact I'm happy to settle for F4 FF equivalent.  For me having shallower DoF is about having my images look less flat and have a bit more depth in them, so the choice is creative instead of trendy.  I did some tests with my APS-C camera and 18-35 1.8 and when looking at the frames decided that the F2.8 (F4 FF equivalent) was sufficient, anything else would be nice, but would be a luxury.  I've shot a few test videos at APS-C F1.8 and I find the look too strong on almost every shot.  As you say, things should have a 'sense of place'.

The setup that is "winning" for my needs right now is the A7iii with the 24-105 F4 as this would give me the flexibility to shoot my home and travel videos where I'm shooting a landscape one minute, a bird 200m away the next and then a portrait of one of my kids the moment after that. That lens combined with the crop mode and clear image zoom provides about 24-250mm which is flexible enough for my needs.  Unfortunately FF seems to be the only system that has that combination of aperture and zoom range.  As a bonus, the IBIS + OIS of the combo will also help the good but not great IBIS (the 24-70 F2.8 doesn't have IS).  The AF will be great for me because my brain often can't deal with the chaos of a family holiday plus trying to anticipate what is about to happen so I get the shot plus actually taking the current shot, let alone doing down-to-the-pixel MF.

It seems to me that the GH5 is great for slower film-making where there is time to change lenses and do MF but allows hand-held and lightweight setups.  The Pocket2 will be fantastic if you have time to change lenses, do MF, and you can put it on a tripod or gimbal.  The A7III will be great for those who need the flexibility of zooms without compromising the shallower DoF.

@Robert Collins I agree about the convergence of photo and video being a big deal.  One of the key advantages is being able to crop into the sensor but retain full resolution like the A7III.  This is an advantage over dedicated cinema cameras because they tend to have sensor resolutions that match their output resolutions, or are slightly higher (like the 4.6K Ursa).  This gives a tremendous flexibility.  For example my 700D / Sigma 18-35 is 29-56mm equivalent, but the 3x crop in ML makes it a 87-168mm and gives it enough range so be a walk-around lens, not to mention my 55-250mm is both an 88-400mm equivalent and a 264-1200mm equivalent, and that crop mode comes in hugely useful at my kids sports games and they're on the other side of the field.  This is for 1080p - when the 45+MP sensors start being used like this we'll be able to get 2-3X 4K crops, if any of the manufacturers are that bold, plus the full-sensor will be 8K capable.  I have no idea what the market for a C100 sized camera that shoots 8K video would be in, say 2021, but it would sure be an interesting thing to see.

[nigelbb]

M43 is being squeezed by Sony from both sides from FF &  APS-C above & by 1" sensor in the RX10 & RX100 series bridge cameras below.

[kye]

Does anyone make a ILC with a 1" sensor?  I can't think of any, but I'm not a database

[Cinegain]

Samsung NX Mini. Nikon 1-series. There's even a system with smaller sensors... Pentax Q. Of course, non of these are viable anymore.

But that comment was, I think, more about making it worth to upgrade your kit to something a little more serious. And with the gaps shrinking between categories, a lot of people might still want something that's better in terms of use and results than a smartphone, but might take the convenience of a premium compact/bridgecamera/superzoom over the costs, bulk and complexity of a full system. Or when they do opt for the latter, that they might as well feel like going fullframe as body costs have come down there, where MFT flagship costs have gone up considerably.

[Shirozina]

I find the M43 sensor size too limiting for general video use in that it severely restricts DOF options without adding exotic ultra fast glass ( primes only mainly) which then have to be used with heavy ND filtering in anything but low light. I do however think that Panasonic's 10 bit 4.2.2 codec is significantly better than Sony's 8bit 4.2.0 - it just looks better with more subtle tonal separation and can be used with LOG picture profiles without worry it will fall apart in grading. If Sony match their internal codec to the same for the A7sIII I'll probably jump right back. On the whole I've not looked back since I ditched my 5DII for an A7r - mirrorless IS the future and DSLR's are on borrowed time.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

m4/3 need to up their game in video CAF - Panasonic need urgently to implement PDAF, Olympus need to improve theirs.

Low light (especially for stills) need to improve too - but this is dependent of Sony to supply more BSI sensors (AFAIK the GH5s have the only BSI m4/3 sensor).

In fact, I've always had m4/3 cameras almost only, but now I am waiting to see where it goes. Love the format, but the future looks bleak - could become a video only niche, and don't know if it could survive. 

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, Shirozina said:

I do however think that Panasonic's 10 bit 4.2.2 codec is significantly better than Sony's 8bit 4.2.0 - it just looks better with more subtle tonal separation [...]

The videos and screengrabs I’ve shared tell a different story. In fact, some thought I was shooting log, when in fact I was shooting Cine2. In addition, noise is virtually invisible with the Sony, whereas even at low ISOs and at normal viewing distances, noise is always present in the Panasonic clips. Texture and detail in shadow areas which are obscured in the Lumix footage are also visible in the full frame images. As a matter of fact, Sony has higher resolution overall. This is borne out in rigorous lab tests as well.

[Shirozina]

37 minutes ago, jonpais said:

The videos and screengrabs I’ve shared tell a different story. In fact, some thought I was shooting log, when in fact I was shooting Cine2. In addition, noise is virtually invisible with the Sony, whereas even at low ISOs and at normal viewing distances, noise is always present in the Panasonic clips. Texture and detail in shadow areas which are obscured in the Lumix footage are also visible in the full frame images. As a matter of fact, Sony has higher resolution overall. This is borne out in rigorous lab tests as well.

I'm talking about the codec and not the DR, noise characteristics or res of the sensor and lens - too many variables.