Panasonic GH6

[Avenger 2.0]

1 minute ago, Rinad Amir said:

Phase detect auto focus like Canon would be ultimate GH6 and to put icecing on top prores as codec 🥳 no need for 6k 8k 4k would be just fine

Indeed. I have no need for 8k, still doing 1080p here at the moment 🤣
But good PDAF and tracking would be perfect for one-man and gimbal operation.

 

 

[Rinad Amir]

15 minutes ago, Avenger 2.0 said:

Indeed. I have no need for 8k, still doing 1080p here at the moment 🤣
But good PDAF and tracking would be perfect for one-man and gimbal operation.

 

 

Same i dint see any major quality difrences 1080 vs 4k on gh5 ( am blind 🙄)plus people this days watch eveything on smartphones so win for everyone including your harddrive 🤣 

[ride_on_the_rhythm]

I've had the GH3, GH4, GH5 and now S1H.  Love them all.  It's the exact same frame of view I really don't understand what others here are talking about.  View is not cropped??!! 

S1H with the 24-70 lens does seem a bit sharper with wider apertures than the equivalent on the GH5, and low light performance is improved but nothing earth shattering at all. 

I still have the GH5 and will still be using it as needed. 

 I must admit loving the flexibility to zoom 24-70 and maintain sharp/ fast vs swapping primes on GH5.  That's the single biggest advantage to me. 

Still need 100-400 + GH5 so I don't have to carry around a FF bazooka lol

 

  

[thebrothersthre3]

4 hours ago, Rinad Amir said:

Same i dint see any major quality difrences 1080 vs 4k on gh5 ( am blind 🙄)plus people this days watch eveything on smartphones so win for everyone including your harddrive 🤣 

There isn't really a file size difference between 1080p and 4k if you are shooting at 100mbps. 

I agree though, unless you are cropping you can't tell a difference, until maybe you blow it up on a big 4k screen. 

[mercer]

9 hours ago, ride_on_the_rhythm said:

I've had the GH3, GH4, GH5 and now S1H.  Love them all.  It's the exact same frame of view I really don't understand what others here are talking about.  View is not cropped??!! 

They're referring to the 2x crop of the sensor compared to full frame. So with M4/3 you would need a 12-35mm lens to have the same field of view as a 24-70mm lens on full frame. You also have to double the aperture value... so an f/2.8 lens on M4/3 will act as an f/5.6 lens on full frame. If you're using native lenses it may not matter as much, but if you're adapting lenses, it can be difficult to get fast wide angle lenses. 

[IronFilm]

On 3/3/2020 at 6:10 AM, eleison said:

At the end of the day, full frame is what I choose and a lot of people want.  Do your own thing and if it works for you, fine.  However, as a previous m43 user, even with the touted advantages of the system NOW; it's just not for me.  Whatever technology that can make a smaller sensor better than a larger sensor (gh5s), that technology can be transported to the larger sensor and greatly improve that technology.  It's all about waiting a bit and full frame will get that technology. 

But by the time FF gets everything there is in a GH5/GH5S/GH6 then I'm sure the MFT system will have moved further on as well!
 

On 3/3/2020 at 6:10 AM, eleison said:

I'm not wasting my time chasing rainbows.

But isn't waiting on FF the "chasing rainbows" option?

Just for example, how many people are still waiting for a mythical "a7Smk3"? (some folks have been waiting YEARS for this!)

Meanwhile we've got a GH5(or GH5S) which is better in many regards! (Waveforms/TC/4K60fps/10bit/240fps/etc)

[eleison]

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But by the time FF gets everything there is in a GH5/GH5S/GH6 then I'm sure the MFT system will have moved further on as well!
 

But isn't waiting on FF the "chasing rainbows" option?

Just for example, how many people are still waiting for a mythical "a7Smk3"? (some folks have been waiting YEARS for this!)

Meanwhile we've got a GH5(or GH5S) which is better in many regards! (Waveforms/TC/4K60fps/10bit/240fps/etc)

That's the thing.  People are "waiting" for the A7smk3.  We aren't chasing the next greatest and latest.  When (and if) it comes, we might buy it -- if it is good.  Instead of concentrating on switching systems (canon RF, nikon Z, etc..); we wait for the market to come to us.  The focus is on using a little bit of patience instead of giving more and more money to camera manufactures year after year.  Spend of some of that money on more important items with a higher ROI -- lights, acting, production values, etc.  Bleeding edge camera technology is expen$ive.

Even at this point, the GH5s still doesn't trump the A7III for low light.  At least not definitely.  The general consensus is that the GH5s is good, but the A7III is better for low light.  The a7sii (a really old camera), still trumps the latest and greatest M43 cameras with respect to low light.  

Yes, there have been improvements in m43 that the hybrid full frames are slow to adapt ((Waveforms/TC/4K60fps/10bit/240fps/etc).  But these advantages do not in aggregate trump the biggest (imho) advantage of the full frame sensor -- the viewing perspective.  To me that is the biggest advantage.  The viewing perspective allow me to digitally crop, pan, zoom, etc.  This also allow me 2X more cut points while editing.  Perhaps, with a newer M43 camera I can over/underexpose by 3 stops instead of the 1.5 stops.  Perhaps, I can't do 240fps with an older full frame camera, and have to settle with 120fps, etc..  That's fine. For most stuff that I do, I don't really need those items that often.  I also don't do extreme grading.  The 8 bit seems adequate for me to match scenes and it's very seldom I can't get the exposure within 1.5 stops (I'm not blind - hahahah).

It seems like we are rehashing ourselves :-)  you be you.  And I'll be me.  Whatever people use, just create a bunch of cool content for people :-)  

[newfoundmass]

The funny thing is, the only FF that matches or exceeds the features of the GH5 are... Made by Panasonic! 

Honestly the fact we're having this conversation is a sign of how fortunate we are. 20 years ago I never imagined that I'd have access to the cameras we have today. I figured at best I'd pinch my pennies until I could buy a XL1 or XL2 second hand. That was "the dream." I feel kind of fortunate that I'm still very much that 15 year old at heart, and still view things from a similar perspective. I realize how lucky I am, because young me would die to of had a GX85, let alone an A7iii or GH5! 😂

[Video Hummus]

8 minutes ago, eleison said:

The focus is on using a little bit of patience instead of giving more and more money to camera manufactures year after year.

They need the money! 😁

8 minutes ago, eleison said:

Spend of some of that money on more important items with a higher ROI -- lights, acting, production values, etc.  Bleeding edge camera technology is expen$ive.

I agree, but see below...

8 minutes ago, eleison said:

Even at this point, the GH5s still doesn't trump the A7III for low light.  At least not definitely.  The general consensus is that the GH5s is good, but the A7III is better for low light.

Maybe so, but it's good enough for almost every case except extreme niche one-off shoots.. Then again, as you said, maybe just spend money on the lights and then having incredible lowlight ability virtually vanishes...because you have more lights.

9 minutes ago, eleison said:

Yes, there have been improvements in m43 that the hybrid full frames are slow to adapt ((Waveforms/TC/4K60fps/10bit/240fps/etc).  But these advantages do not in aggregate trump the biggest (imho) advantage of the full frame sensor -- the viewing perspective.

Those are all very, very nice to have and for me trumps the wider full frame perspective you get.

9 minutes ago, eleison said:

It seems like we are rehashing ourselves 🙂 you be you.  And I'll be me.  Whatever people use, just create a bunch of cool content for people 🙂

I agree. And this happens every-time someone just comes out and says M43 is poopie because sensor is small and M43 users collectively roll their eyes.

[Video Hummus]

5 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Honestly the fact we're having this conversation is a sign of how fortunate we are

Totally agree. It's more about how well the person behind the camera is operating it then the deficiencies of the camera its being shot on because most modern cameras are very good. We mostly nitpick...except for Panasonic not adding PDAF, thats just annoying as hell.

[newfoundmass]

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

Maybe so, but it's good enough for almost every case except extreme niche one-off shoots.. Then again, as you said, maybe just spend money on the lights and then having incredible lowlight ability virtually vanishes...because you have more lights.

You can do that?! 

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, eleison said:

Even at this point, the GH5s still doesn't trump the A7III for low light.  At least not definitely.  The general consensus is that the GH5s is good, but the A7III is better for low light.  The a7sii (a really old camera), still trumps the latest and greatest M43 cameras with respect to low light.  

In my opinion the GH5S/BMPCC4K/E2/Terra are "better" in lowlight, as sure the a7 series might have a small edge if you're obsessed purely and only about noise levels. But the colors turn to sh*t with the a7 at high ISOs! (not that they ever started out too super great with the Sonys) While the GH5S etc holds onto it better as you push up the ISO, thus you're left with a better looking image. 
 

2 hours ago, eleison said:

But these advantages do not in aggregate trump the biggest (imho) advantage of the full frame sensor -- the viewing perspective.  To me that is the biggest advantage.  The viewing perspective allow me to digitally crop, pan, zoom, etc.  This also allow me 2X more cut points while editing. 

Nonsense. 

1) there is not true whatsoever in being possibly just with FF, you can do this exactly just the same with S35/APS-C/MFT/S16

2) shooting to intentionally be cropping later in post is baaaad for sound, bad for the art department, bad for lighting, bad for the actors, etc... don't do it!
 

2 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

They need the money! 😁

Especially now! With the Coronavirus. 

 

2 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

I agree. And this happens every-time someone just comes out and says M43 is poopie because sensor is small and M43 users collectively roll their eyes.

Yup, even in a thread about the GH6, during a conversation specifically about "sized doesn't matter" like you think, then someone just a couple of hours ago basically said "M43 is poopie because sensor is small" as they're implying on a "small sensor" you can't crop & pan. What nonsense!

[eleison]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Nonsense. 

1) there is not true whatsoever in being possibly just with FF, you can do this exactly just the same with S35/APS-C/MFT/S16

2) shooting to intentionally be cropping later in post is baaaad for sound, bad for the art department, bad for lighting, bad for the actors, etc... don't do it!
 

 

A lot of people reframe.  While I don't like Red, here's an example.

 

You can ALMOST do the exact same thing with M43, if you have a SHARP AND FAST enough wide lense; good enough light, and adequate distance from the subject to the camera.  Unlike full frame cameras, I can barely find the equivalent SHARP and FAST M43 lens.  An M43 camera gets close to full frame with the metabones adapter, but you do lose some sharpness.  With respect to reframing, M43 is possible, but why make it harder for myself?  There will be situation a smaller sensor will not be able to create the same video due to the lack of distance from subject to camera, or the large aperture that does not exist for a wide angle lens on the M43 system which does exist for full frame.

For example in the above footage, an M43 camera would have to be position further away from the subjects than a full frame camera to make sure that the people are both in frame (while at the same time necessitating the compressing of the image).  Sometimes this would mean they would have to extend the car hood.  Perhaps, there isn't enough distance (like in a very small set), and the shot would just not be possible unless walls are broken down (film makers did this a lot in the golden age of movies) or without building custom camera rigs.

In addition fast wide angle lens, give the director an easier way to blur the background of the cropped video.  Most M43 wide angle lens are not really that fast (when the smaller sensor size is taken into account) so the reframed shots will usually have a larger dof.  These are the reason I'm excited about full frame 8k cameras and why M43 isn't for me.  I can do any shot that a M43 camera can do with full frame, but it's not the same for the M43 camera (mostly due to compressed perspective, blackground blur, and IMHO digital noise; cropping from a smaller sensor is never a good idea).  The shots that the M43 can do, is close.. but not close enough for me.  1.5x crops is very demanding on lenses.  Nothing right now says to me that M43 wide angle lens can handle that much sharpness especially once we start moving to 8k.   That' what??? 3X crops at least.. Instead of cropping just to her face in the above video, you could crop into her eyes conveying a different type of emotion.  Or in some shorts, cutting into the drivers fingers conveying nervousness.  So many situations where that would be helpful.  Not to mention, you can more easily match cut when editing because you would have so many more things on screen you can match cut to.

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, eleison said:

A lot of people reframe.  While I don't like Red, here's an example.

Sure, of course some people do. 

Doesn't mean you always should, plus it doesn't mean the many disadvantages to it goes away. 

And that video was a promo video from RED, the most infamous example in the industry of people who are pushing for ever more "K"!

The rest of your post is either:
1) wrong (saying you can't use MFT in small rooms)
2) complaining about lenses (when in fact I'd say there are many very fine lenses for MFT)

[eleison]

I'll just leave this here since we have now moved to a place of ideology:

 

"Putting aside the many aesthetic reasons, I told him that there are a great many benefits that come with the increased sensor size. There was the luxury of reserving an area outside of the theatrical release, for visual effects. A big consideration for a movie like this. There would also be a need to extract an IMAX (1.9:1) format from the sensor area. Lastly, the greater resolution would allow flexibility for reframing in post."

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-behind-marvel-cinematic-universe-phase-three/

 

Lets agree to disagree... U be u and lets create awesome content.  Nothing says you cannot use M43 for filming.  Remember its not the size that matters, but how you use it. hahahah

[buggz]

For me, there STILL NEEDS to be some type of focus assist output via HDMI when shooting 6k anamprphic.

DURING recording internally.

I still don't know why this cannot be done.

[sanveer]

A relentless rant, about the infallible benefits of full frame (a deluding moniker coined by someone who probably hadn't heard of medium format until then), has absolutely no place in a discussion about rumors (and wishlists) about a sensor that measures a little over 1/4th the size of 36x24mm.

There are many discussion threats on Full Frame camera, where Full Frame camera discussion would be more appropriate. 

Let's limit discussion to the M43 format and in specific the GH6, here. 

[kye]

11 hours ago, eleison said:

I'll just leave this here since we have now moved to a place of ideology:

 

"Putting aside the many aesthetic reasons, I told him that there are a great many benefits that come with the increased sensor size. There was the luxury of reserving an area outside of the theatrical release, for visual effects. A big consideration for a movie like this. There would also be a need to extract an IMAX (1.9:1) format from the sensor area. Lastly, the greater resolution would allow flexibility for reframing in post."

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-behind-marvel-cinematic-universe-phase-three/

 

Lets agree to disagree... U be u and lets create awesome content.  Nothing says you cannot use M43 for filming.  Remember its not the size that matters, but how you use it. hahahah

Not ideology..  we're all chasing an image that's as high-end or highest quality as we can.

The issue that we have here on this forum is that we are very out-of-touch with what techniques are used to get the images that we admire, from large budget productions, or from classic films anyway.  There is a lot of stuff that isn't spoken about online, and it kind of exists outside of the internet, or at least is hidden behind paywalls.  It's easy to spend a long time consuming content and interacting with people online without ever really knowing that this stuff exists, especially now with social media 3.0 actively creating echo-chambers.

In order to move out of the realm of ideology completely, let's look at some data.  I'm going to assume that you know how to read an MTF chart, since you seem to value resolution so highly.  If you don't then I'd highly recommend you look into them, they're invaluable.

One thing you may not be aware of however, is that lenses don't have a "resolution".  To say one lens is 14MP and another is 16MP is oversimplification to the point it's misleading, because it's not that simple.  The resolution of a lens will blur detail, which essentially has a softening effect, lowering contrast of that detail.  Yes, there does get a point where if the detail is fine enough then the lens has lowered the contrast of that detail to zero, but the transition from it being very sharp (ie, high contrast) to very soft (ie, low contrast) is actually a progressive one.  MTF charts show this softening effect by measuring contrast at varying lines per mm, lp/mm, and obviously the higher the lines per mm you use to measure, the less contrast a given lens will have.  This is an important distinction, as we will see later.

Amongst the most popular workhorse cinema lenses are the Zeiss CP.2 primes.  Here is how they measure: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/06/just-the-cinema-mtf-charts-zeiss-cine-lenses/

Here is one of the MFT charts:

This indicates that with fine detail they have very low levels of contrast, ie, low resolution.  

Here's a chart from the Xeen testing article: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/05/just-the-cinema-lens-mtf-charts-xeen-and-schneider/

This is even lower resolution again.

Lets compare a 50mm Zeiss CP.2 to a high resolution lens:

The Zeiss is obviously inferior in resolution terms to the other lens by quite some margin.  Also, that other lens also happens to be an MFT lens.  

So why are cinematographers happy with such poor resolution.  Well, there's two factors that I can see, one is that digital video has been low resolution historically, and the other reason is that cinematographers actually like lower contrast lenses and will go to reasonable lengths to lower it.  Remember when I said above that a "lower resolution" lens is actually a lens that has relatively lower contrast on finer details than another lens.  Have a read of this article: https://www.provideocoalition.com/the-secret-life-of-behind-the-lens-nets/

This article talks about how cinematographers are deliberately putting netting / fabric between the lens and the camera, in order to lower the contrast of fine detail.  ie, to lower resolution.

Some examples from that article...  A close-up with no net:

Black sparkle mesh:

Silver sparkle mesh:

Cropping is indeed a thing now, especially on lower budget productions where multiple cameras or multiple takes with different focal lengths are beyond the budget, and in this case, people may now move to controlling image softening in post.  Film halation effects also do this.  

To go one step further, softer light sources do this, especially for skin texture, which is where the desire for lower contrast is typically expressed.

In photography there is a very strange set of behaviours:

• Insatiable desire to get the highest resolution lenses and the highest resolution camera and the highest quality image format (RAW) in order to capture the finest details, then....
• Get the model to put on makeup (which lowers the contrast on larger skin features like lines, wrinkles, etc - it's called "concealer" for a reason)
• Cart around ridiculously huge soft boxes in order to smooth the skin (lowering the level of contrast across all detail sizes)
• Now we go into photoshop and we:
  • dodge/burn with a brush (lowering the contrast of medium sized details)
  • paint over skin areas with filters that lift shadows, or similar (lowering the contrast of all skin details)
  • and then potentially we do frequency separation, where we literally seperate the frequencies, which correspond to small, medium and large detail, and then basically eliminate medium sized detail

What is left after all this contrast reduction (lowering resolution) seems to be that we have the models eyes and hair rendered in glorious detail, but skin at detail levels approaching 720p with a Petzval lens.

I'm not sure about you, but in the context of all that, I've kind of lost the logic as to why we need a wide angle lens that is 36MP wide-open (8K resolution).  They do exist, but go have a look at DXOMark and tell me how many lenses there are that exceed 30MP that anyone here can afford.

[eleison]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Not ideology..  we're all chasing an image that's as high-end or highest quality as we can.

The issue that we have here on this forum is that we are very out-of-touch with what techniques are used to get the images that we admire, from large budget productions, or from classic films anyway.  There is a lot of stuff that isn't spoken about online, and it kind of exists outside of the internet, or at least is hidden behind paywalls.  It's easy to spend a long time consuming content and interacting with people online without ever really knowing that this stuff exists, especially now with social media 3.0 actively creating echo-chambers.

In order to move out of the realm of ideology completely, let's look at some data.  I'm going to assume that you know how to read an MTF chart, since you seem to value resolution so highly.  If you don't then I'd highly recommend you look into them, they're invaluable.

One thing you may not be aware of however, is that lenses don't have a "resolution".  To say one lens is 14MP and another is 16MP is oversimplification to the point it's misleading, because it's not that simple.  The resolution of a lens will blur detail, which essentially has a softening effect, lowering contrast of that detail.  Yes, there does get a point where if the detail is fine enough then the lens has lowered the contrast of that detail to zero, but the transition from it being very sharp (ie, high contrast) to very soft (ie, low contrast) is actually a progressive one.  MTF charts show this softening effect by measuring contrast at varying lines per mm, lp/mm, and obviously the higher the lines per mm you use to measure, the less contrast a given lens will have.  This is an important distinction, as we will see later.

Amongst the most popular workhorse cinema lenses are the Zeiss CP.2 primes.  Here is how they measure: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/06/just-the-cinema-mtf-charts-zeiss-cine-lenses/

Here is one of the MFT charts:

This indicates that with fine detail they have very low levels of contrast, ie, low resolution.  

Here's a chart from the Xeen testing article: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/05/just-the-cinema-lens-mtf-charts-xeen-and-schneider/

This is even lower resolution again.

Lets compare a 50mm Zeiss CP.2 to a high resolution lens:

The Zeiss is obviously inferior in resolution terms to the other lens by quite some margin.  Also, that other lens also happens to be an MFT lens.  

So why are cinematographers happy with such poor resolution.  Well, there's two factors that I can see, one is that digital video has been low resolution historically, and the other reason is that cinematographers actually like lower contrast lenses and will go to reasonable lengths to lower it.  Remember when I said above that a "lower resolution" lens is actually a lens that has relatively lower contrast on finer details than another lens.  Have a read of this article: https://www.provideocoalition.com/the-secret-life-of-behind-the-lens-nets/

This article talks about how cinematographers are deliberately putting netting / fabric between the lens and the camera, in order to lower the contrast of fine detail.  ie, to lower resolution.

Some examples from that article...  A close-up with no net:

Black sparkle mesh:

Silver sparkle mesh:

Cropping is indeed a thing now, especially on lower budget productions where multiple cameras or multiple takes with different focal lengths are beyond the budget, and in this case, people may now move to controlling image softening in post.  Film halation effects also do this.  

To go one step further, softer light sources do this, especially for skin texture, which is where the desire for lower contrast is typically expressed.

In photography there is a very strange set of behaviours:

• Insatiable desire to get the highest resolution lenses and the highest resolution camera and the highest quality image format (RAW) in order to capture the finest details, then....
• Get the model to put on makeup (which lowers the contrast on larger skin features like lines, wrinkles, etc - it's called "concealer" for a reason)
• Cart around ridiculously huge soft boxes in order to smooth the skin (lowering the level of contrast across all detail sizes)
• Now we go into photoshop and we:
  • dodge/burn with a brush (lowering the contrast of medium sized details)
  • paint over skin areas with filters that lift shadows, or similar (lowering the contrast of all skin details)
  • and then potentially we do frequency separation, where we literally seperate the frequencies, which correspond to small, medium and large detail, and then basically eliminate medium sized detail

What is left after all this contrast reduction (lowering resolution) seems to be that we have the models eyes and hair rendered in glorious detail, but skin at detail levels approaching 720p with a Petzval lens.

I'm not sure about you, but in the context of all that, I've kind of lost the logic as to why we need a wide angle lens that is 36MP wide-open (8K resolution).  They do exist, but go have a look at DXOMark and tell me how many lenses there are that exceed 30MP that anyone here can afford.

Thank you for your informational reply.  I'm still digesting the information.  I will not be able to fully reply to a lot of your assertions and to be honest, some of it is probably over my head :-).  In my opinion, lens sharpness wasn't a big deal because historically, directors and editors rarely cropped FILM.  I think the general consensus is that 2k is good enough for theater presentation (regular theaters not IMAX, etc.) (https://nofilmschool.com/2017/08/yedlin-camera-resolution-myths).  Because of this, these classical cinema lenses that were used on film were more than sharp enough even if film stock had more fidelity.  These older/cinema lenses only need to resolve up to 2k images.

I guess I can understand the irony that photographers look for sharpness, only to obliterate it later w/ makeup, soft lighting, etc.. however, that is basically only for one use case:  images of people.  However, if you look at at subjects (cars, buildings, etc), photographers will keep the resolution.

I'm also confused when you say that there are not many lenses that exceed 30mp resolution?  With many high resolution cameras (a7rIV, 5dr, d850, etc.) out in  the market place, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that it's folly to buy these cameras because few lens would have enough sharpness for these cameras.  However, this article disagrees with this statement:

https://www.martijnkort-photography.com/what-lenses-to-use-on-sony-a7riv/

There are other articles saying the same thing.  It is my belief that video is only a series of images therefore if these lenses are able to resolve high resolution images of aprox 30MP, they should be fine for 8k video which is aprox 30MP imagines.  Granted 10 years ago, there were very few lens that could resolve that high of a megapixel count -- but back then you don't have high megapixel cameras.  Now you do and manufactures are creating sharper glass -- gm lenses, sigma art, etc.

That is one of the things I hear about photography lens -- they are too sharp.  They don't have character like cinema lenses, etc...  But times are a changing.  As more and more movies do special affects like green screen, it's gets more important to have high resolution imagines that are created by sharp lenses to get better keying.  Not to mention, the previous discussed advantages like re-framing.  But at the end of the day, there's a lot of ways to skin a cat.  If people don't want to shot on larger sensors.  That's fine.  There are people still taking photographs using film stock, and listening to vinyl.  Good for them.  I'm not going to be part of that group though.  Technology waits for no man.  You can use technology to help you, or you don't. 

[anonim]

5 hours ago, eleison said:

Technology waits for no man.  You can use technology to help you, or you don't. 

But as far as I notice, cutting edge technology nowadays in respective field (and market) is always coming  first to m43 format and just with delaying time (not so non significant) to FF? Aren't you quite obviously in a proper or best topic - so not by chance - for such quoted preference - because of well founded expectation that GH6 will be first camera from some future best technology offer? Or, in another words - it seems to me that exactly weighting leading technology as particular aspect of interest, in last decade m43 is The system that regularly leads in that sphere and has to be in special favor for such primarily preference. That's why we are in GH6 topic, expecting that it will be the again the first with some combination (not just one isolated spec) of new technology offer with higher level of usability?

(And btw, just because of mentioning of usage of vinyl recording as retro in the same time with cutting edge quality - in term of high(est)end quality (that was idea of quoting), vinyl recording is not surpassed with digital (at least at classic music field that I was sometimes called to judge)... Unfortunately I have no similar opportunity and experience with highest quality film based camera vs digital to suggest if it could be the same case, at least in some spec.

Imho there are some limit in creative art that solely technology can reach because of nature of human perception, and after that limit it becomes obtrusive and need self-establishing propagandist ideology to be really accepted.

At the end of the day there's no modern manufacturer that can approach near close to quality of Stradivarius or Guarneri violins. Even Steinway's pianos have been perfected about 15-20 years ago (to the last little drop, but actually much earlier) and there's no necessity nor expecting regarding further developing  without impossible destroying innate human audio perception. So, as far as I can see, we are in the middle of trend of serious democratizing creative opportunity, and it is at least one reason to feel privilege to leave today and to read such greatly elaborate research contributions as Kye's - that discussed how close we are in approaching natural perceptive limit for truly artistic usage - in topic about 3000e cameras.