Panasonic announcing a full frame camera on Sept. 25???

[webrunner5]

10 minutes ago, jonpais said:

The GH5 is still holding its own on Amazon’s best seller list and many filmmakers prefer the GH5 to the a7 III. If most customers are buying the GH5 for video, that’s a pretty impressive achievement.

Well seeing how you can't even get a A7 mk III hardly anyplace I am not surprised about that statement. And some that do have it mark it up to 2400 bucks.

[Oliver Daniel]

Bloody hell, this month is nuts. 

You have to bear in mind, for Panasonic, they will need to differentiate this significantly so they don’t hurt the GH camera appeal and the status of the EVA1.   Not really sure how they would do that. 

I’m going to have a wild guess at a new mount with a new line of lenses, which will also fit the upcoming Olympus system (who have patented numerous full frame lenses). Plus a bundled EF adapter. 

I’ll guess at no crop functionality for M43 lenses, to differentiate the system. Also pretty much identical specs to the other GH cams apart from higher MP, DR and sensor size. 

My last guess is it will be more expensive than the A7III but less than the A7RIII. 

This talk of A7SIII sensor, 8k and RAW sounds silly, but who knows. This camera world is throwing surprises everywhere. 

 

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, Dan Sherman said:

I always laugh when I hear people lusting after that "FF look”

You sound like someone that is 30 years old. There was no such thing But FF on film cameras, other than a few odd duck ones, for 75 years. Older people are Used to that size. It has the best quality. And older people can afford them. The smaller cameras don't fit the average American's hands very well. They have way more MP. Every camera manufacturer has one or is making one. There is a ZERO trend of making cameras small anymore. There is no market for them now.

I can see m4/3, I have had a bunch of cameras with that mount. Even my AF100 used it, BMPCC i had. even this New PK4 has it. But I just like the look and versatility of FF Mirrorless. Now I will admit I DON'T want a FF DSLR anymore.  I toy with the idea of going back to it. But when I pick up my A7s which is just as small as nearly any m4/3 camera, I just can't go back. There is more 35mm FF used lenses out there than anything else. There is a Different look, a look you can't get in m4/3 like  @Oliver Daniel says.

[Oliver Daniel]

23 minutes ago, Dan Sherman said:

I always laugh when I hear people lusting after that "FF look”

It is definitely a real thing though, and it’s probably the easiest way of describing it for most. 

For instance, put a Sigma ART 14mm on a full frame cam, set it at f1.8 and place your subject very close to the lens. That type of “look”, among many others, simply can’t be achieved on M43. There’s a broader range of possibilities. 

Ironically, I don’t own a full frame camera either. Maybe this next Panasonic will be the one to buddy up with the others. 

 

[anonim]

50 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

For instance, put a Sigma ART 14mm on a full frame cam, set it at f1.8 and place your subject very close to the lens. That type of “look”, among many others, simply can’t be achieved on M43.

 

Yes, it must be "The look"

[Andrew Reid]

1 hour ago, Oliver Daniel said:

Bloody hell, this month is nuts. 

You have to bear in mind, for Panasonic, they will need to differentiate this significantly so they don’t hurt the GH camera appeal and the status of the EVA1.   Not really sure how they would do that.

Well it works for Sony!

EVA1 = Sony FS7

Full frame Panasonic = Sony A7R III

And Canon, Nikon, Panasonic all jumping into the A7R III / A7 III territory, says one thing... Sony strategy is working.

Canon however I don't think will let their full frame mirrorless get as close to the Cinema EOS cameras. No sign of the leopard changing its spots anytime soon.

1 hour ago, Oliver Daniel said:

I’m going to have a wild guess at a new mount with a new line of lenses, which will also fit the upcoming Olympus system (who have patented numerous full frame lenses). Plus a bundled EF adapter.

Makes sense for Panasonic, Olympus and Leica all to use the same modern mirrorless mount.

That will give them a big advantage on Canon and Nikon. 3x the native lenses.

1 hour ago, Oliver Daniel said:

I’ll guess at no crop functionality for M43 lenses, to differentiate the system. Also pretty much identical specs to the other GH cams apart from higher MP, DR and sensor size. 

My last guess is it will be more expensive than the A7III but less than the A7RIII.

I think we've already seen a Panasonic full frame mirrorless.

The Leica SL! They have the technology ready, just a matter of going after the wider market.

I would say you're pretty much on the money with the pricing. At least with the first model. Sure there will be a cheaper lower-end version in future, but they will start high.

1 hour ago, Oliver Daniel said:

This talk of A7SIII sensor, 8k and RAW sounds silly, but who knows. This camera world is throwing surprises everywhere.

I don't think I have any need whatsoever for 8K.

RAW would be great though.

However Sony need to look beyond specs to keep the Sony A7 series relevant in the face of sudden 3x increase in competition.

Ergonomics need to change. Electronic ND needs to go in there. Venice colour. They need to up the game.

[anonim]

1 hour ago, Dan Sherman said:

Honestly, I think a lot of people who are constantly always wanted to get into full frame have insecurity issues. So many of them have that I need to be a ”real boy” mentality, and to them that means they have to use FF whether it's for Stills or video.

If it hasn't be true, at least sounds as psychologically very interesting viewing perspective

I immediately admit that I have (indeed without irony) "little boy" mentality, because - besides having enormously better UW- and zoom-lenses possibility, I haven't yet understand what in practice of (non-exotic, i.e. non in lemur conditions or so) narrative film making are today's comparative advantages of FF system cameras (for stills it is obvious to me). As little boy, I'm just waiting who will be the first and who the best to offer RAW/10-12bit plasticity of shooting/correcting/grading solution, even better with internal ND and usable IBIS solution  - and it seems to me obvious that FF will be the last to do so.

Really out of any a priori favorite inclination, I'm also confused with fact that if I sell my GH5 and its lenses - which I still easy can - after all weighing of + and - for my specific creative needs, I would again buy GH5 as still best swiss knife creative solution or, even, platform!

[newfoundmass]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

How many people you really think are going to buy a GH5 over a FF EOS R, Z6, A7 mk III?? About 22 people on here, that's all there will be. There is probably less than 5% of people actually take video even remotely serious. The vast majority of people could give a Rats Ass about super video features, or any video features at all.. Heck of a lot of people wish they sold cameras with NO video at all in them.

Search YouTube. There are quite a few photographers that have released videos explaining why they left Canon/Nikon for m43 cameras. While the GH5 has appealed more to video shooters, it is used by photographers. 

[webrunner5]

28 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Search YouTube. There are quite a few photographers that have released videos explaining why they left Canon/Nikon for m43 cameras. While the GH5 has appealed more to video shooters, it is used by photographers. 

They left them because they had No Mirrorless FF bodies. Not because it was necessarily m4/3 in my opinion. My sons 5D mk III to me is just a turd size wise compared to my A7s in hand. I don't care how good the Canon is in ML, I Don't want to shoot with it.

And the GH5 is just not good using AF. I could not deal with that. But sure there are real benefits to m4/3. But I think the weight saving are not as big as you think unless you are talking 200mm lenses or longer. There are some really small FF bodies out. My A7s weighs almost nothing even compared to my Oly EPL1. Sure it's lighter, but unless I am going to climb Mount Everest, I am not!, it is a pretty irrelevant difference to be honest. And these new plastic bodied lens really don't weigh that much for FF mirrorless cameras anymore. Sony has Really changed what a FF camera can do, and how small that stuff can get. And now Canon, Nikon people can enjoy it also.

[ND64]

I don't know how they gonna handle the customer perception management. With m4/3 the message was "for high quality photo and video, you don't need FF, and with fast lenses we and others are making for the system, you don't even miss FF DOF". With jumping to FF, its like saying "sorry guys, we were wrong about that". 

[Oliver Daniel]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Well it works for Sony!

EVA1 = Sony FS7

Full frame Panasonic = Sony A7R III

And Canon, Nikon, Panasonic all jumping into the A7R III / A7 III territory, says one thing... Sony strategy is working.

Canon however I don't think will let their full frame mirrorless get as close to the Cinema EOS cameras. 

 

I think the tricky thing here is that Panasonic have the GH5 and GH5S as ideal companions to the EVA1. Does the introduction of a full frame mirrorless for possibly a bit more money eclipse their M43 GH cams? How would they significantly differentiate it? Surely they wouldn’t cannibalise their popular M43 system. What will they do so you want both a GH5 and GH FF? 

Canon, although still rocking those sales, have been behind since the tepid answer to the FS7 in the C300 II (probably the most overpriced and dissaponting camera ever released). Their colour science and DPAF is going to lose steam as a USP. 

All in all, I hope Panasonic smash it. 

[AaronChicago]

I better hold on to my Leica R’s a little longer. The search for full frame vintage primes will surely heat up.

[Dan Sherman]

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

You sound like someone that is 30 years old.

I wish, I'm pushing 39, and if you believe my wife I'm 10 years older than that, not to mention I have a general dislike for members of the generation you assumed i was in.

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

They left them because they had No Mirrorless FF bodies. Not because it was necessarily m4/3 in my opinion. My sons 5D mk III to me is just a turd size wise compared to my A7s in hand. I don't care how good the Canon is in ML, I Don't want to shoot with it.

And the GH5 is just not good using AF. I could not deal with that. But sure there are real benefits to m4/3. But I think the weight saving are not as big as you think unless you are talking 200mm lenses or longer. 

On the m43 forum you will find the legions of people who will tell you they left because they wanted smaller kit. By kit they mean lenses and bodies. A lot of them are doing nature photography, and yes at medium to long end the size and weight savings is substantial. Others are people who do lots of travel photography, and use the smaller bodies and smaller lenses, and again the weight saving can be substantial. 

[newfoundmass]

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

They left them because they had No Mirrorless FF bodies. Not because it was necessarily m4/3 in my opinion. My sons 5D mk III to me is just a turd size wise compared to my A7s in hand. I don't care how good the Canon is in ML, I Don't want to shoot with it.

And the GH5 is just not good using AF. I could not deal with that. But sure there are real benefits to m4/3. But I think the weight saving are not as big as you think unless you are talking 200mm lenses or longer. There are some really small FF bodies out. My A7s weighs almost nothing even compared to my Oly EPL1. Sure it's lighter, but unless I am going to climb Mount Everest, I am not!, it is a pretty irrelevant difference to be honest. And these new plastic bodied lens really don't weigh that much for FF mirrorless cameras anymore. Sony has Really changed what a FF camera can do, and how small that stuff can get. And now Canon, Nikon people can enjoy it also.

That's simply not true. I'm specifically referring to people that have switched in the last couple of years; Sony's full frame mirrorless cameras were available at the time and they still went with m43. 

It's not simply how much the bodies weigh but how much the lenses weigh. Take the Sony 70-200mm. It weighs over 1480 grams! The Panasonic equivalent is 357 grams. The closest Olympus equivalent is 760 grams. You can carry an entire set of Panasonic lenses and it'd weigh less than that one Sony lens. That's not an insignificant difference. 

[webrunner5]

34 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

That's simply not true. I'm specifically referring to people that have switched in the last couple of years; Sony's full frame mirrorless cameras were available at the time and they still went with m43. 

It's not simply how much the bodies weigh but how much the lenses weigh. Take the Sony 70-200mm. It weighs over 1480 grams! The Panasonic equivalent is 357 grams. The closest Olympus equivalent is 760 grams. You can carry an entire set of Panasonic lenses and it'd weigh less than that one Sony lens. That's not an insignificant difference. 

I said lenses 200mm or longer remember. Sure they are lighter. I said that the newer FF cameras lenses are a heck of a lot lighter than they used to be. So the advantage is not like it was.

And I don't doubt they sell more m4/3 cameras than FF Sony's. They are a lot cheaper cost cameras! I doubt m4/3 sales have grown any at all. I bet it has shrunk, and FF cameras have gone up in sales.  Other than Fuji you hardly ever hear anything even about APSC now.And with these new FF ones from Canon and Nikon they will go up even more. Who is going to buy a GH5 when you can buy FF for nearly the same money if you are serious about this stuff? Sure on here the GH5, and the PK4 are better video cameras for us. But we are a .0001% for the total purchasing of camera bodies!

1 hour ago, Dan Sherman said:

I wish, I'm pushing 39, and if you believe my wife I'm 10 years older than that, not to mention I have a general dislike for members of the generation you assumed i was in.

On the m43 forum you will find the legions of people who will tell you they left because they wanted smaller kit. By kit they mean lenses and bodies. A lot of them are doing nature photography, and yes at medium to long end the size and weight savings is substantial. Others are people who do lots of travel photography, and use the smaller bodies and smaller lenses, and again the weight saving can be substantial. 

Sure as people age they go smaller. That is why I went Sony A7 stuff, beginning at the rollout of them. But I humped around the AF100 and a bag of gear to go with it, and to shoot decent video even the A7 there is a lot you have to take with it. Heck a damn nice Tripod and Fluid head weigh more than a long FF lens. Video is a bitch weight wise, cost wise, even knowledge wise. It is Hard to do it well in reality no matter what kit you have. But it is pretty awesome at the same time. Addictive.

[Dan Sherman]

39 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Who is going to buy a GH5 when you can buy FF for nearly the same money if you are serious about this stuff? Sure on here the GH5, and the PK4 are better video cameras for us. But we are a .0001% for the total purchasing of camera bodies!

In my eyes the bodies aren't the problem, it's the glass. Take your typical higher end zoom kit common amoung those that shoot stills and video.

• Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 II $1000
• Panasonic  35-100mm f/2.8 II $1100

 

• Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM $2200
• Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS $2600

 

FF. is over twice as much.  The sad thing is, I don't think this is something your average person looks into when choosing a system.   


 

[Aussie Ash]

17 minutes ago, Dan Sherman said:

In my eyes the bodies aren't the problem, it's the glass. Take your typical higher end zoom kit common amoung those that shoot stills and video.

• Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 II $1000
• Panasonic  35-100mm f/2.8 II $1100

 

• Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM $2200
• Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS $2600

 

FF. is over twice as much.  The sad thing is, I don't think this is something your average person looks into when choosing a system.   


 

There are far more lens choices with Full frame particularly third party

Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art   US $1300

Tamron 28-75mm f2.8   US $400

Tokina 24-70 f2.8       US $950

If you want high quality wide or fast with micro 4/3 you pay through the nose -Panasonic 42.5mm f1.2  US $1400

[webrunner5]

37 minutes ago, Dan Sherman said:

In my eyes the bodies aren't the problem, it's the glass. Take your typical higher end zoom kit common amoung those that shoot stills and video.

• Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 II $1000
• Panasonic  35-100mm f/2.8 II $1100

 

• Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM $2200
• Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS $2600

 

FF. is over twice as much.  The sad thing is, I don't think this is something your average person looks into when choosing a system.   


 

Yeah but you can buy f4 FF lenses and be the same as m4/3 at f2.8 for DoF. And FF is better at low light, so fast glass is not as important. It woks out about the same in reality.

Like I say, I don't see m4/3 have that much of a edge anymore. Plus the bodies are to small for me anyways.

Plus I could not afford either system without using old adapted lenses, Auto and MF.  I have the 16-35mm F4 and 28-70mm FE lenses.  The rest just cheap old stuff lens wise. Really cheap, old stuff LoL.?

[Robert Collins]

4 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

I don't know how they gonna handle the customer perception management. With m4/3 the message was "for high quality photo and video, you don't need FF, and with fast lenses we and others are making for the system, you don't even miss FF DOF". With jumping to FF, its like saying "sorry guys, we were wrong about that". 

I agree (so much so that I dont think Panasonic is coming out with a new camera system but a new videocam.)

To a lesser extent, I see this as a problem for Canon and Nikon too. For instance, Canon is set to announce 2 x US$10,000+ DSLR lenses (400 2.8 + 600 4). If the underlying message to their customers is that their DSLRs will become increasingly obsolete over the next 5 years, who is going to buy them?

[mercer]

How is that their message? DSLRs won’t be increasingly obsolete over the next 5 years.