Wishes for 10 years on from the birth of mirrorless

[sanveer]

19 hours ago, Cinegain said:

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

@Cinegain what an exhaustive and interesting list. 

 

14 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

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 agree. Sony seems to have gate-crashed the Mirrorless party. Big time. The fact that it has probably dethroned Nikon in many markets and had dethroned Canon recently in the US, which has pushed everyone in the ILC business into Mirrorless. 

3 hours ago, Cinegain said:

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

Both were like Dead on Arrival. The Panasonic GM Series is Even Smaller than the Samsung NX Mini while having a larger sensor and much better image quality. 

 

13 hours ago, jonpais said:

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.

You could add Price to that list, and with the A7iii, Sony seems to have dealt with almost every issue.

 

7 hours ago, kye said:

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.

Various Panasonic (and Olympus?) Cameras do have ETC kind of zoom too, which are similar in function. Obviously with lesser megapixels, there is lesser megapixels to zoom in from . 

 

I guess reading from the above and adding a few points, Panasonic needs to address the following:

1. Video Dynamic Range on the Panasonics are mostly disappointing. If the GH5 can do 13 stops in RAW, why should VLog L be in the 11.36 stops range? It is definitely a forced handicap by Panasonic, which is a fundamental flaw witj the video codec (all profiles) on the Panasonics. And if the GH5s can do Over 13.5 stops, then the VLog L is definitely the weakest point on the camera.  On the Sony A7 and even the other A Series, SLog has dynamic range in video very close to that of the photo dynamic range, and mostly 13 or more stops (upto 14 stops). On Panasonic other profiles (non-VLog) have another Stop of 2 less of dynamic range, and you pretty much get the picture. 

2. Panasonic Needs to move go 14-Bit RAW photo on it's Flagship Cameras (the GH and G Series). The ability to push photos in post is just amazing. Recovery of 3-4 stops of shadows (or highlights), is just phenomenal on the Sony A Series. Panasonic Needs to implement this. 

3. Panasonic Needs to have PDAF. There is no other viable option. DFD is like 1-2 years behind the competition (wrt PDAF), and this is most apparent in video.

4. I am wondering whether Panasonic needs to Explore Image Fusion from a much smaller sensor like on Dual Sensor Smartphone Cameras? It could use the recently announced 1/2 inch Sony 48MP IMX586, sensor along with a 20-24MP M43 Sensor, combining information from both, and having excellent low light and very high detail for a 24MP Sensor, or have the option for 48MP in reasonably good light. Plastic lenses and other shortcomings and handicaps of smartphone cameras can also be dealt with this way.

5. Like someone suggested above, I too feel Electric NDs should be a standard on Panasonic's GH Range. That could really be an added feature in the next GH Series camera. 

6. The GH5s has shown that there is a market for non-IBIS and IBIS Cameras, in the GH Line to co-exist. Also, the JVC's GY-LS300 has shown that there is scope for a larger sensor inside Panasonic's M43 Mount cameras. It can help with much larger pixels or much higher pixel count, or both plus multi-aspect zooms.

7. While I never got to use the GM1 or GM5, a lot of people swore by them as being the best travel cameras. I am not sure why Panasonic ended that line so abruptly. Like someone mentioned above the 12-32mm is such an amazing compact zoom. Even the GX9 seems to be a strange decision, the GX8 after the GX7 and the GX85 in between. That entire line seems to have no consistency or roadmap. Which, unfortunately doesn't speak very well about the product line and the guys planning it.

8. I guess Most Importantly while Panasonic and Olympus and many others M43 partners  (Sigma, Voigtlander etc), are making some great glass, M43 is in need of some Super Fast 3x Zoom Glass like the Original Zuiko f2 Zooms, only with OIS and much faster autofocus. Like f2 12-36mm and f2 35-105 Zooms. They could have built-in speedboosters if it helps.

9. Panasonic does need a Higher Resolution (24-28MP) Model, and should not make all sensors around the 20MP cap, that seems to be the current standard.

 

Edit: like @jonpais mentioned (and so many other too), Panasonic's 400mbps is just too heavy a codec, and Panasonic needs a 100mbps equivalent of Sony's XAVC-S present in Sony's Slog, with the full dynamic of VLog (not in its present form, but in one that exploits the sensor's full dynamic range). The 400mbps is very processor and space heavy. And it doesn't justify the heavy bitrate. 

[jonpais]

20 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

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

Right - you said it looks significantly better, with nicer tonal gradations - which is not supported by the facts.

[newfoundmass]

50 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Right - you said it looks significantly better, with nicer tonal gradations - which is not supported by the facts.

That's his opinion. There really aren't facts when it comes to preference. 

[jonpais]

18 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

That's his opinion. There really aren't facts when it comes to preference. 

Thanks for chiming in with your useless and delusional comments.

[kye]

5 hours ago, Shirozina said:

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) 

3 hours ago, sanveer said:

Various Panasonic (and Olympus?) Cameras do have ETC kind of zoom too, which are similar in function. Obviously with lesser megapixels, there is lesser megapixels to zoom in from.

I think it's the lenses on MFT that are the biggest limitation.

When we consult a tool like mmCalc which calculates equivalent lenses on different sensor sizes:

• An F5.6 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F3.7 lens for APSC and F2.8 for m43
• An F4.0 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F2.7 lens for APSC and F2.0 for m43
• An F2.8 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F1.8 lens for APSC and F1.4 for m43
• An F2.0 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F1.3 lens for APSC and F1.0 for m43

(The APSC numbers are a bit funny as crop factor varies by manufacturer but they're approximately correct for my purposes)

FF is drowning in F1.8 - 2.0 primes (and even lots faster are common but let's set these aside for the moment), and these are standard lenses.  Equivalents are available on APSC at F1.4, and there are a rare few F0.95 or F0.85 on M43.  The range for ~F1.8 equivalent lenses on m43 is severely limited, but it's a start, however you're out of luck if you want a FF F1.4 equivalent (it would need to be F0.7), and you're dreaming if you want a FF F1.2 equivalent lens.

FF is drowning in F2.8 zooms, and these are the standard pro lenses.  Think how many 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 zooms have been made over the decades.  
Only the Sigma F1.8 zooms match it on APSC, and are no F1.4 zooms on M43.  This is the one that I think is strange because the fastest zooms on m43 aren't even one stop slower at F2, they are two stops slower at F2.8, which is the FF equivalent of a fixed F5.6 zoom!  

Most (all?) variable aperture kit zoom lens on FF bodies are faster across most of their zoom ranges than the fastest PRO zooms on m43, including extremely expensive offerings.

Please someone tell me I made a mistake......

[jonpais]

Still, focal length has a greater impact than aperture, no? Which is why I usually reach for longer lenses like the Oly 75mm f/1.8 or Veydra 85mm T2.2 if I need some separation. 

ETC has no effect on DOF as far as I’m aware.

[webrunner5]

14 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Still, focal length has a greater impact than aperture, no? Which is why I usually reach for longer lenses like the Oly 75mm f/1.8 or Veydra 85mm T2.2 if I need some separation. 

ETC has no effect on DOF as far as I’m aware.

I agree, you are allowed to step back further and use a longer lens. Now if you are standing on the top of a telephone pole, well yeah your screwed one way or the other! ?

 

[newfoundmass]

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

Thanks for chiming in with your useless and delusional comments.

I figured it was worth reminding you that if he prefers the image, and thinks it's far superior, it doesn't matter how much you claim "the facts" say otherwise because, ya know, it boils down personal preference. 

You're welcome though. I feel I should thank you for being a crotchety old man that has caused multiple people to cease posting here (I miss @Mattias Burling, it's a shame that a knowledgeable shooter and someone that has devoted an incredible amount of time to educating and helping people avoids this place because of you.) You're experience filming people in cafés has been invaluable here. 

[jonpais]

I merely said that his assertion was unsupported by the facts - meaning that he hasn’t brought any evidence to the table to back up his claims.

That is a perfectly reasonable argument to make.

I did not say he isn’t entitled to his own opinion.

However, when he says that one codec has significantly (demonstrably, vastly, substantially, etc.) nicer tonal transitions than another, that implies that the difference should be readily discernible by a casual observer.

I dispute his claim. 

Click on image to enlarge.

[kye]

53 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Still, focal length has a greater impact than aperture, no? Which is why I usually reach for longer lenses like the Oly 75mm f/1.8 or Veydra 85mm T2.2 if I need some separation. 

ETC has no effect on DOF as far as I’m aware.

If you're talking about DoF then many things factor in, but all else being equal I think my above post stands.

What do you mean by ETC?  I feel like I should remember what it stands for, but I can't

40 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I agree, you are allowed to step back further and use a longer lens. Now if you are standing on the top of a telephone pole, well yeah your screwed one way or the other! ?

 

It depends on the situation.  If you're shooting in a confined space then often you can't step back.

I'm not sure if this is true but I think stepping back and zooming in might negate any DoF impacts because the ratio of distance from the camera to the subject to the distance from the subject to the background also changes.

Taking a step back and putting on a longer focal length also has other effects.  I'm sure we're all familiar with these:

Basically, two lenses are equivalent if I mount them each to a camera, stand in the same spot, point the cameras in the same direction, and see the same angle of view and DoF.  

[jonpais]

@kye ETC - extra teleconverter. hehe

I suggest you have a look.

[kye]

8 minutes ago, jonpais said:

ETC - extra teleconverter. hehe

Ah, ok.  Yes, you're right that cropping in doesn't effect the DoF.

So if you put a 50mm 1.8 on a Canon APSC it is the same as an 80mm 1.8.  The problem is that if you buy a 27mm F1.8 and put it on a Canon APSC it will have the same angle of view as a 50mm on FF, but the DoF will not be the same as a 50mm F1.8 on FF.  This is the part that confuses people.

[BTM_Pix]

55 minutes ago, kye said:

I think it's the lenses on MFT that are the biggest limitation.

Natively perhaps, if actually less so now than it used to be, but the mount itself will take just about anything except E mount lenses.

If you use the smart versions of the Metabones speed booster for EF lenses then you can have a lot of very fast glass (made faster) complete with AF and aperture control from the camera.

The Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 becomes an 11.5-22.4mm f1.2 lens when used with the Metabones XL 0.64 for example, which makes it equate to a 22-45mm f2.4 if it were on a full frame.

The biggest drawback comes in the wider areas generally but even then something like the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 in EF mount using the Metabones XL is going to be like having a 14-20.5mm f3.6 on a full frame, which few people would feel would be a limitation.

Having big chunks of lens like those and using an adapter doesn't really jive with the whole compact camera philosophy of course but fast glass on full frame isn't particularly compact either so if people want that sort of performance then it comes with the territory.

With the f1.4 manual focus prime lenses from Samyang in EF mount then mounting them on the Metabones will get you the equivalent of f2 full frame primes without breaking the bank or your back.

 

 

[kye]

4 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Natively perhaps, if actually less so now than it used to be, but the mount itself will take just about anything except E mount lenses.

If you use the smart versions of the Metabones speed booster for EF lenses then you can have a lot of very fast glass (made faster) complete with AF and aperture control from the camera.

The Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 becomes an 11.5-22.4mm f1.2 lens when used with the Metabones XL 0.64 for example, which makes it equate to a 22-45mm f2.4 if it were on a full frame.

The biggest drawback comes in the wider areas generally but even then something like the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 in EF mount using the Metabones XL is going to be like having a 14-20.5mm f3.6 on a full frame, which few people would feel would be a limitation.

Having big chunks of lens like those and using an adapter doesn't really jive with the whole compact camera philosophy of course but fast glass on full frame isn't particularly compact either so if people want that sort of performance then it comes with the territory.

With the f1.4 manual focus prime lenses from Samyang in EF mount then mounting them on the Metabones will get you the equivalent of f2 full frame primes without breaking the bank or your back.

Yes, but adapters are perhaps even less pro than the native F5.6 equivalent "PRO" zoom lenses.

My take on it is that m43 has boomed with the same kind of spirit as the DSLR revolution, people who are willing to sacrifice usability, features (and sometimes quality) for an extreme reduction in price and size, in comparison to the previously available ILC cinema cameras.

I am aware that the higher-end industry pros dip into the smaller sensor cameras now and then for specific purposes like dangerous / destructive situations like car crashes and explosions and for tiny hand-held setups like @John Brawley has shared with us, but my impression was that this happens a lot more often than that tier of users would consider using speed boosters or other adapters.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the whole thing just doesn't seem to vibe with the "we're on the clock / I need it to be reliable and stay out of my way" requirements of the higher-tier pros.  I get that many people are paying off their home-loans from these setups, but if you're talking about m43 being as common as Super35 on large budget TV shows and feature films then I think the native lens selection is a real limiting factor.

Maybe it's just a matter of time for more lenses to be released, and perhaps higher-tier industry use will grow over time as it all matures.

[BTM_Pix]

26 minutes ago, kye said:

Yes, but adapters are perhaps even less pro than the native F5.6 equivalent "PRO" zoom lenses.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the whole thing just doesn't seem to vibe with the "we're on the clock / I need it to be reliable and stay out of my way" requirements of the higher-tier pros.  I get that many people are paying off their home-loans from these setups, but if you're talking about m43 being as common as Super35 on large budget TV shows and feature films then I think the native lens selection is a real limiting factor.

I'm not sure why they would be any less "PRO" when they might well have extremely high quality Canon mount lenses attached to them?

The adapters are such an integral part of the process for people using these cameras that they are permanently attached to the camera and so can be more or less considered the de facto lens mount. 

Changing the lens means just changing the lens as if it were a native Canon mount at that point.

This is also true for cameras like the Sony FS5 and FS7 where a large number of them that are used in professional environments every day permanently use an EF adapter.

I'm not sure where I've suggested MFT cameras are in common use on large budget TV shows and feature films by the way?

Even if that was the suggestion, there are numerous reasons why they wouldn't get used in that environment that would take precedence over the lens choice, native or otherwise.

I have a RED Epic and a set of PL primes and my Panasonic GX80 can mount all of them and use them in exactly the same way so if those lenses are not limiting the RED then they can't be limiting the Panasonic surely?

Absolutely everything else about it would be of course but not the lenses

I'm not trying to have an argument with you for the sake of it by the way - as I think the native offerings could be cheaper as well for one thing - but I do disagree about the lens choice being the limitation when it is adaptable to so many different lenses.

For what its worth, I think MFT as an imaging format in terms of cameras from Panasonic and Olympus is probably in a bit of an awkward place right now but its more to do with the internals than the lens options. MFT as a mount with cameras such as LS300 and probably the BM4K behind it is a different situation but, again, the E mount is catching and probably overtaking it in terms of utility.

[Robert Collins]

8 hours ago, sanveer said:

8. I guess Most Importantly while Panasonic and Olympus and many others M43 partners  (Sigma, Voigtlander etc), are making some great glass, M43 is in need of some Super Fast 3x Zoom Glass like the Original Zuiko f2 Zooms, only with OIS and much faster autofocus. Like f2 12-36mm and f2 35-105 Zooms. They could have built-in speedboosters if it helps.

 

I always think that when M43 users see the need for extremely fast, large, heavy and expensive lenses, they are missing the point. BTW, the Zuiko 35-100 f2 weighs 1.65kg which is more than the Sony 70-200 2.8 GM. You see what you are really asking for is a bigger sensor....

https://camerasize.com/compact/#482.460,777.639,ha,t

[webrunner5]

Out of likes. Well stated.

Yeah I have a Olympus EPL1 and a with a 20mm f1.7 is the way to go. It takes pretty amazing photos for a 14mp sensor. They have a super weak anti-aliasing filter in them. Even has IBIS! Now video, ehh 720p. I paid like 48 dollars for the body years ago on Amazon!

 

[kye]

4 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I'm not sure why they would be any less "PRO" when they might well have extremely high quality Canon mount lenses attached to them?

The adapters are such an integral part of the process for people using these cameras that they are permanently attached to the camera and so can be more or less considered the de facto lens mount. 

Changing the lens means just changing the lens as if it were a native Canon mount at that point.

This is also true for cameras like the Sony FS5 and FS7 where a large number of them that are used in professional environments every day permanently use an EF adapter.

I'm not sure where I've suggested MFT cameras are in common use on large budget TV shows and feature films by the way?

Even if that was the suggestion, there are numerous reasons why they wouldn't get used in that environment that would take precedence over the lens choice, native or otherwise.

I have a RED Epic and a set of PL primes and my Panasonic GX80 can mount all of them and use them in exactly the same way so if those lenses are not limiting the RED then they can't be limiting the Panasonic surely?

Absolutely everything else about it would be of course but not the lenses

I'm not trying to have an argument with you for the sake of it by the way - as I think the native offerings could be cheaper as well for one thing - but I do disagree about the lens choice being the limitation when it is adaptable to so many different lenses.

For what its worth, I think MFT as an imaging format in terms of cameras from Panasonic and Olympus is probably in a bit of an awkward place right now but its more to do with the internals than the lens options. MFT as a mount with cameras such as LS300 and probably the BM4K behind it is a different situation but, again, the E mount is catching and probably overtaking it in terms of utility.

Is this an argument? I thought it was a debate   I'm definitely learning things and am open to the idea I could be wrong..  I'm wrong about things all the time!  If someone isn't then they need to get out of their rut a bit more ?

I was assuming that adapting lenses was something that the pros weren't that into, but maybe that's not the case.  I know that the photography youtubers all went to Sony and adapted their Canon glass and then abandoned it, and I thought the GH5 adoptees also adapted and then abandoned them too, but these might all be AF related.

I know you didn't bring up m43 on large budget productions - I did.  I think that m43 has no fundamental limitations to its potential, and personally I would like it to succeed.  Having a lens mount that is supported by more than one manufacturer is great - everyone wins - imagine that the Motion Picture Experts Group didn't exist and all we had was platform specific formats, what a mess that would be.  

The only fundamental thing that m43 has against it is that a smaller sensor gathers less light, assuming no speed boosters, which means that it is at a disadvantage with noise performance.  I can't think of anything else that is fundamentally worse (maybe I'm missing something though) but there are huge potential benefits.  Cameras can be made smaller which is useful for some applications.  Cameras that are made the same size (eg, for ergonomics and screen size) will have more room internally for IBIS, cooling, more processing.  In really fast digital circuits the length of a track on a circuit board can be a problem and shorter paths are better and support faster data transfers.  All else being equal these support faster readouts and less rolling shutter.

Even if you have all the money in the world, a larger heavier camera might require a robot arm instead of a gimbal, this reduces setup times, cost and weight of the setup, etc.  If you halve the size of something (scale to 50% size) it becomes 8 times lighter and occupies 8 times less volume.  This means less trucks and fuel and people to lug equipment around, etc.

All this at the cost of making a sensor that is two stops better in ISO noise performance, which cinema cameras aren't market leaders in anyway, and having equivalent lenses.

I'm not saying that the lens lineup stops the current users from using it, I'm saying it's a limitation of the format taking over the entire industry.  Aim big right?

1 hour ago, Robert Collins said:

I always think that when M43 users see the need for extremely fast, large, heavy and expensive lenses, they are missing the point. BTW, the Zuiko 35-100 f2 weighs 1.65kg which is more than the Sony 70-200 2.8 GM. You see what you are really asking for is a bigger sensor....

https://camerasize.com/compact/#482.460,777.639,ha,t

Actually, I'm taking a style of film-making and working out what equipment is required to get that end result, and then looking at which camera systems are able to give me the functionality I need.  In a way I'm saying that tools should fit the requirements of the customer, and you're saying that the tools don't meet the customers needs and the customer should go somewhere else.  That's fine if you don't want to gain those customers, but why wouldn't you?

[IronFilm]

2 minutes ago, kye said:

The only fundamental thing that m43 has against it is that a smaller sensor gathers less light, assuming no speed boosters, which means that it is at a disadvantage with noise performance.  

Except many many many more factors go into lowlight performance than purely sensor size. 
As the Panasonic GH5S has shown, which is the best mirrorless camera on the market for lowlight video. (split hairs if you like and argue the a7Smk2 is better instead)

Then you need to think about it from a practical aspect as well, who is shooting wide open at f1.2 all the time? 
You need to pick a DoF which matches the needs of the blocking/schedule and the story, that translates into a F stop which is always going to be faster on the GH5S. Thus allowing in even more light! Giving it an additional advantage on top of already starting out ahead of the pack to begin with anyway. 

Just yesterday there was a thread over on reduser with the vistavision sensor guys realizing and complaining about how they need to pump in more light into their sets to reach the F stops they have to work at due to the larger sensor.   

Well d'oh!

[webrunner5]

Yeah but it is like @Robert Collins said," I don't see a future for Olympus in the camera business", I don't either sad to say. The EM1 mk II has sort of been a flop to be honest. Nothing else really new from them either. Without them m4/3 is looking pretty damn slim. JVC isn't selling the heck out of LS300's, and the DVX200 was no hot cake thing either in the long run. Now the new PK4 might help, but they aren't going to sell Millions of them.

With FF cameras near, or the same price as Panasonic higher end m4/3 cameras I don't know about that no matter how good the video is on them.  Panasonic isn't even the power house they were for TV's years ago. Not looking like a great outlook long term for them unless they do some s35, FF stuff on the cheap. But there isn't room now with Canon, Nikon in there. Interesting.