Wishes for 10 years on from the birth of mirrorless

[jonpais]

Are you familiar with the term gaslighting? Cognitive dissonance?

I don’t even want to be part of a conversation where the merits of full frame are in dispute. It is a pointless waste of time.

[anonim]

Is this subsequent effect of talking shit about poor unprotected Sony camera division and its/their products? 

[jonpais]

fanboy.

[Mmmbeats]

I totally agree with the need to take a fresh look at manufacturing a general purpose fast zoom for M4/3.  It's frustratingly just about the only thing I can't do within the system. 

I'd like to be able to wander around (chest rig or monopod) following live-action as it unfolds, with a zoom that gives me slightly wide to slightly beyond portrait, and shallow DoF options for when I choose them. 

This is all possible with a plethora of f/2.8 lenses at 35mm, but sadly options are very compromised (or non-existent) at M4/3 where it would require f/2 or greater really. 

[anonim]

Jon, are you really serious?  

Lets say it in different way: please be happy that you may acquire and mastered usage of GH5, than usage of A7 III and made equally nice results with both.. and please be little bit more mild and more mercy with me who see (it might be just temporarily) some marginal topics a tiny little bit differently than your findings!

Or, if I stay in impression that you really think about me as fanboy, I don't  what to do - maybe to also call BTM_Pix and his experience with a6500 for consolation...

I'm kidding little bit, of course... if I'm disturbing you, sorry, it was not my goal... just don't bother with me any more here... finally my impression/opinion really is not at all important about this topic...

 

[webrunner5]

18 minutes ago, Mmmbeats said:

I totally agree with the need to take a fresh look at manufacturing a general purpose fast zoom for M4/3.  It's frustratingly just about the only thing I can't do within the system. 

I'd like to be able to wander around (chest rig or monopod) following live-action as it unfolds, with a zoom that gives me slightly wide to slightly beyond portrait, and shallow DoF options for when I choose them. 

This is all possible with a plethora of f/2.8 lenses at 35mm, but sadly options are very compromised (or non-existent) at M4/3 where it would require f/2 or greater really. 

I think it is called the laws of Physics. ? I don't think they will ever be able to make really fast zooms lenses, none at least we could afford to buy, or want to carry!

Couple of 4/3 zooms that are f2.0, but would only work on a EM1, EM1 mk II.

http://lenshero.com/lenses/zoom-f2.8-lens-by-Olympus

[Mmmbeats]

1 minute ago, webrunner5 said:

I think it is called the law of Physics. ? I don't think they will ever be able to make really fast zooms lenses, none at least we could afford to buy, or want to carry!

Couple of 4/3 zooms that are f2.0, but would only work on a EM1, EM1 mk II.

http://lenshero.com/lenses/zoom-f2.8-lens-by-Olympus

The 4/3 lenses are the reason I see it as a realistic possibility rather than just an idle want.  Of course they would be clunky and pricey, but for many pro shooters they would still be a godsend.

A quick aside about light and portable setups - I love it that the M4/3 systems can do this, but I use it as an *option*.  Sometimes it's great to be nifty, others it's better to utilise the functionality of adapted lenses, rigs, etc. and go a little heavier.  Different tools for different jobs.  I value the versatility overall.

[webrunner5]

Well I went mostly with m4/3 because of the adapted lenses to be honest. I am sort of big enough to be able to carry FF DSLR stuff. ? But wow when I first got into m4/3 you could buy old lenses at pawn shops for 20 dollars a bag full. They twisted your arm to get them out of the shop! There was Flee Market in Fort Myers, Florida and a guy there must have had 300 of them. 30, 40 bucks for Zeiss stuff. A million Minolta, Pentax lenses. Hog Heaven as they say.

[Andrew Reid]

10 years on, Panasonic should really be leading things out front.

I don't know whether it is down to a smaller budget, or Panasonic upper-management not allowing total freedom, but it's sad that Sony and Nikon are out front when Panasonic were the ones to pioneer the entire market, at a time others were too scared to make the jump.

5 hours ago, jonpais said:

fanboy.

If anything dude, you are the one turning into a fanboy.

[newfoundmass]

Jon's jump from GH5 fanboy to Sony fanboy is wild. 

I wish he wasn't such an intolerant dick and was able to process the notion that we all have different opinions, preferences, and wants. If you don't agree with him and his "facts" you're delusional, an idiot or both. 

[sanveer]

39 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

10 years on, Panasonic should really be leading things out front.

I don't know whether it is down to a smaller budget, or Panasonic upper-management not allowing total freedom, but it's sad that Sony and Nikon are out front when Panasonic were the ones to pioneer the entire market, at a time others were too scared to make the jump.

I am sure that smaller sensors (such as 1inch anf M43) can improve dynamic range by combining multiple exposures and employ Dual Gain Architecture (like on the Arris), and have the advantage of faster readout, lesser rolling shutter and other benefits. Especially for sensors (such as that in the GH5s), that have 10-bit 4k at upto 240fps (I am guessing 60fps may be the baseline and anything above that is just an added bonus). And if smartphone (and drones by DJI) can get excellent photos (in HDR Mode) by photo stacking, there is no reason why camera companies cannot improve their photo quality (in JPEGs to begin with).

Changes in ILCs is way slower than smartphones. If Snapdragon processors (limiting photo sizes and the number of devic3s natived controlled by the processor) and Android platforms (very slow adoption of the vari0us nat8ve codecs used, plus other algorithm support) didn't have so many hiccups (and if HEIF and other codecs and arrived earlier), smartphones would actually have DSLR comparable pics. The only limitation may be that they would be in 10-bit HEIF instead of 12 and 14-Bit RAW.

Panasonic needs to seriously consider a Sensor with 48MP that does the Quad Bayer sensor stacking like on the Sony IMX586 Sensor. Or a Sensor that has a clickable or shutter positioned Colour Filter Array that adds 2.5 times the sensitivity with the regular colour information, and combining the two, to create a Sensor that punched way above it's weight (size). 

[ntblowz]

12 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Jon's jump from GH5 fanboy to Sony fanboy is wild. 

I wish he wasn't such an intolerant dick and was able to process the notion that we all have different opinions, preferences, and wants. If you don't agree with him and his "facts" you're delusional, an idiot or both. 

Yeah, somehow what I do with my money become his personal business lol

[IronFilm]

6 hours ago, jonpais said:

I don’t even want to be part of a conversation where the merits of full frame are in dispute. It is a pointless waste of time.

"I don’t even want to be part of a conversation where the merits of medium format are in dispute. It is a pointless waste of time."

Oh I dunno....

I think there are very legitimate reasons to not consider using medium format!

Even if their prices dropped to a half, or even a quarter of what they are now. 

[jonpais]

3 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

"I don’t even want to be part of a conversation where the merits of medium format are in dispute. It is a pointless waste of time."

Oh I dunno....

I think there are very legitimate reasons to not consider using medium format!

Even if their prices dropped to a half, or even a quarter of what they are now.

I have the best words! ?

[IronFilm]

I quoted you directly above, then wrote my own statement below, so that with your quote side by side it was clear that was my words.  For the point I was making that all sensor sizes have their own set of pros/cons worth discussing. (and of course any con falls under "disputing the merits of..."). 

[jonpais]

4 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I quoted you directly above, then wrote my own statement below, so that with your quote side by side it was clear that was my words.  For the point I was making that all sensor sizes have their own set of pros/cons worth discussing. (and of course any con falls under "disputing the merits of..."). 

You’re smoking crack man. ?

[webrunner5]

Oh boy!

[jonpais]

4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Jon's jump from GH5 fanboy to Sony fanboy is wild. 

I wish he wasn't such an intolerant dick and was able to process the notion that we all have different opinions, preferences, and wants. If you don't agree with him and his "facts" you're delusional, an idiot or both. 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinons, not to their own facts. 

You might think Earth is the largest planet, but that doesn’t change the fact that Jupiter’s mass is 300 times greater.

I’ve supplied lab tests from reputable sources as well as screen grabs from my own work to refute wild unverified claims about noise and tonal transitions, something which neither you nor Shirozina nor IronVideo have done. 

By the way, I own both the GH5 and the a7 III. Both systems have their own strengths and weaknesses. I haven’t shied away from writing extensively about the annoyances of the a7 III in the appropriate threads; probably more so than anyone else in this forum. And that list is not short.

In fact, no other forum member has shared as many videos and screen grabs of video taken with the Panasonic and Sony cameras, shot with some of the finest available lenses in both systems and under identical lighting conditions so readers can make up their own minds.

[newfoundmass]

The point you're missing is, you can post all the lab tests that you want, when it comes to what camera is "better" it all boils down to preference and what each person believes. There are facts and there are opinions, you often confuse the two and denigrate and insult those that don't agree with your facts because, to put it bluntly, you're a dick to virtually everyone. 

I'm not invested enough to look up the post because frankly arguing with you is pointless, but it was just the other day that you were telling @Shirozinathey were factually wrong because they liked the Panasonic 10 bit 4:2:2 codec more than the Sony's 8 bit 4:2:0. Who the fuck cares about your tests if he prefers the Panasonic? Those aren't facts, those are your own conclusions that you pass on as facts while he came to his own conclusions. 

What's even more telling is when @Andrew Reidcalls you out you have nothing to say, but when anyone else does you call them fanboys, accuse them of smoking crack, etc. I don't understand why your attitude and behavior are tolerated, regardless of how much useful stuff you share, especially when you have caused at least one knowledgeable professional to post less here. You look to be in your 60s, act like it. 

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

The point you're missing is, you can post all the lab tests that you want, when it comes to what camera is "better" it all boils down to preference and what each person believes. There are facts and there are opinions, you often confuse the two and denigrate and insult those that don't agree with your facts because, to put it bluntly, you're a dick to virtually everyone. 

I'm not invested enough to look up the post because frankly arguing with you is pointless, but it was just the other day that you were telling @Shirozinathey were factually wrong because they liked the Panasonic 10 bit 4:2:2 codec more than the Sony's 8 bit 4:2:0. Who the fuck cares about your tests if he prefers the Panasonic? Those aren't facts, those are your own conclusions that you pass on as facts while he came to his own conclusions. 

What's even more telling is when @Andrew Reidcalls you out you have nothing to say, but when anyone else does you call them fanboys, accuse them of smoking crack, etc. I don't understand why your attitude and behavior are tolerated, regardless of how much useful stuff you share, especially when you have caused at least one knowledgeable professional to post less here. You look to be in your 60s, act like it. 

I think you are missing the point. I have never said anyone was factually wrong because they like anything. That doesn’t even make logical sense. I never said one camera was better, never have. We were discussing tonal transitions and noise, not my my age or appearance and certainly not preferences.