Olympus sells Imaging Business

[newfoundmass]

14 minutes ago, Super8 said:

The GH5 has color and bad codec issues. This is why the Z Cam E2 blows away the GH5 and why Panasonic hasn't released the GH6.  It's clear the GH6 is not coming out. 

The one issue I have with Panasonic is they played the spec game with people and they sold a lot of GH5's based on specs only.  Yes the GH5 was spec filled with great IBIS.  But the GH5's image quality at 10bit never held up, ever.

I've worked on a lot of GH5 footage that just falls apart in color grading.   Colorist around the world know this to be true.

I'm happy with it, as is everyone else I know that has used it. 

To each their own! 

[Super8]

1 hour ago, rawshooter said:

It already did:

https://www.statista.com/chart/5782/digital-camera-shipments/

 

But one shouldn't even reply to you since you're bullshitting this list.

"As our chart illustrates, global camera shipments by CITA members dropped by more than 80 percent since peaking in 2010"

Cameras shipped is not cameras sold.

 Smartphones have had an impact on cameras sales.  Shipped camera units is also like shipped albums back in the day of records in the late 70's.  Record companies would claim platinum records based on record shipped and not sales. Rules were changed by the RIAA to stop this.

 

 

[Super8]

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

I'm happy with it, as is everyone else I know that has used it. 

To each their own! 

I'm sure it's a fun camera to use.

My issue with GH5 footage i've graded is the color and DP's that use it miss the proper DOF that gives you the proper cinematic look.  Depth and lens choice always seems off or settled on.

[newfoundmass]

27 minutes ago, Super8 said:

I'm sure it's a fun camera to use.

My issue with GH5 footage i've graded is the color and DP's that use it miss the proper DOF that gives you the proper cinematic look.  Depth and lens choice always seems off or settled on.

I can adapt pretty much every lens ever made onto my GH5; I've never felt like I had to settle in that regard, outside of budget or availability.

I find it easy to get the color I want, with minimal tweaking unless I'm looking for something more stylized. Getting the kind of DOF that I want also has never been a problem for me. 

Ultimately it all comes down to personal preference. I've never been happier with a camera. I've never felt limited by it, at least not to the extent that there wasn't anything I could to get around it. I originally got it for event shooting, and have started to dabble in more narrative style stuff and I credit the GH5 for that. 

[kye]

8 hours ago, Super8 said:

 

Your last post and this one are all over the place and your tone is aggressive. 

Photography is it's own deal.  Medium format is great but just because you are influenced by You Tube videos doesn't mean that industry has a medium format fetish.  Technology moves forward and medium format is great showcase for this. If you understood photography and the needs of photographers you would know what medium format is not an option for professionals.

You actually get to earn an income for your investment in your camera gear.

And this is why the shift upward is away from MFT.

Sorry but the size weight argument is a cop out and weak if that's the main selling point for MFT.  I know your a fan boy of the GH5 and you are emotionally attached but size/weight and even cost is not a selling point like it was 3 years ago. 

Take a look back at the electronic industry.  Many many examples of technology moving forward and leaving the original hardware behind. 

Remember today's cameras are small computers.  Today's mirrorless sensors and processor technology will passed by and left behind.

 

If you weren't so blinded and emotional about the GH5 you would realize why professional colorist see a lot of GH5 footage. 

A) A lot of GH5's were sold

B) Based on GH5 specs the uneducated user thought it could be passed on as "professional looking" footage

C) Color grading often comes in to save the day

D) Ask your color grading buddies the top 3 issues with GH5 footage and if they can spot GH5 footage by "it's native look".

See below:  Using the GH5 on productions cause issues with post production cost.  Having to color grade GH5 footage to the extent that it's tv ready is an issue. Do you know how much a colorist day rate is?

You might want to stop trying to pretend how American Pickers or any other reality tv production works.  The production crew they hired will be charging the day rate rental cost back to the network.  The network does not but gears and hand it out on set to save rental cost.   Industry standard is to line item everything as a rental fee rate if it's used on set or in production.  You bring a 3 ton lighting truck to a shoot and you're charged for anything that comes off that truck.  In summery the production (American Pickers) is paying gear rental fees regardless.  The hired production company can save money by buying GH5's but you better believe someone is paying to have that GH5 color corrected.  So in the end the production cost is higher than if they used better cameras that need very little color grading.

You might want to compare the Z Cam E2 to the GH5 and see how far back the GH5's image quality really is. At the end of the day you hit record once and you capture. Going back and trying to fix footage from cheap cameras has it's limitations. At some point it's ok to be a image snob or perfectionist.  Who want to look back and say "oh, yeah that was shot on the GH5 because we were fan boys and bought into the system".

This whole conversation is jumping around.  We're simultaneously talking about if MFT can create professional images, and also about what is being sold in the market.  These aren't part of the same conversation, because the market for what can create professional images is very small in comparison to what is getting sold in the market.  The percentage of the market that is made up by cameras that are approved by Netflix or by AES EBU etc is very very small.

You are the one making this personal, not me.  Have a read back through our conversation and look for every comment where one of us made a statement about the other ones level of knowledge, character, or capacity for reasoned judgement.  Seriously, I encourage you to do so.  I did.

Size and weight isn't a cop-out argument, smartphones are a counter-example of both your comments about sensor sizes moving up and also size/weight (which are a proxy for convenience).  Size and weight aren't important for productions where camera rigs are larger and typically supported as part of some kind of rig, be it a tripod, shoulder rig, or other, but they are important in the market because lots of cameras are used hand-held or in ultra-portable light-weight setups.

My view is that the market is becoming a U-shaped curve, with smartphones at the tiny-sensor end representing the vast majority of consumer photography, and S35 / FF / FF+ at the other end representing the high-end photography and cinematography markets.  The middle used to be full of pocket cameras for the general public and that's the part of the market that smartphones decimated.

The question is how far the drop in the middle of the curve will go.  MFT is almost exactly in the middle of that dip.  
If we imagine a situation where all that is left is smartphones at the one-end and FF/FF+ professional stills and cine-cameras at the other, would that make sense?  Smartphones are terrible with long focal lengths as they're too large physically for the form-factor, and are bad in low light.  FF cameras aren't pocketable and the lenses are very large.  
From this scenario, I suggest that there is a place in the market for a middle-sized sensor.  Maybe it's a battle between the 1" sensor and the MFT sensor, but I see a market for a "middle sized" sensor well into the future.

Of course the GH5 footage seen by colourists is going to be more challenging than Alexa footage.  Productions shot on an Alexa are much more likely to be lit well and shot under controlled circumstances.  Productions shot on an Alexa are more likely to have a colourist as a matter of course, rather than as a trouble-shooting tactic.  Productions shot on the GH5 and many other cameras of this price-point and market tier will be graded by the DP or Editor as a matter of course and only brought to a colourist when there is a problem that can't be dealt with by the team.  
Of course, when I have discussed the GH5 with the colourists the reaction wasn't one of dread, it was one of 'sure, we see them on a regular basis, no worries'.

I agree with you that the cine market will be fine long-term.
What we're seeing is a shake-up of the market, not a decline of the market.  Home theatre had an amazing impact to the multiplex, but we're watching multiplex content more than ever on streaming sites.  The fact that people can earn a living making high production quality content for free on YT or Instagram through their own branding deals means that these platforms are also feeding into the high-end market.  Whenever I see a glimpse of a camera rig (eg, a reflection in a window) I try and get a good look to see what they're using, and the number of 'normal' YT shows that use a C300 or FS5 is surprising.  You see it less on reality shows on streaming, as they're more carefully edited, but you still see reflections from time to time.  
Of course, counter to your claims of Netflix approved requirements, I see other setups too.  One show used a GoPro Fusion 360 quite a bit.

2 hours ago, rawshooter said:

The G100 is a pretty clear indicator that Panasonic is putting no more significant development into MFT. It's just recycling old components, including the PCB - the camera still has USB 2.0...

I wouldn't expect the GH6 to get more than a CPU upgrade (with the same current-generation ASICs developed for the full frame cameras), but otherwise the same electronics and maybe even the same sensor.

Even if this is true, getting RAW or higher frame rates or better EIS or better AF etc are all possible.  Things like getting a better combination of things, like 4k60 10-bit, or even 5k60 12-bit may be possible (a quick google suggests that the GH5 uses the IMX272AQK sensor, which can do 5K60 open-gate 12-bit, 5K80p 16:9 10-bit, 5K111 2.66:1 10-bit, 2.6k180 2:1 10-bit, etc).

It could even implement V-Log instead of V-LogL or even a straight rec2100 or rec2020 implementation instead of whatever the hell it is using now (it's not either, I did tests).

2 hours ago, Super8 said:

The GH5 has color and bad codec issues. This is why the Z Cam E2 blows away the GH5 and why Panasonic hasn't released the GH6.  It's clear the GH6 is not coming out. 

The one issue I have with Panasonic is they played the spec game with people and they sold a lot of GH5's based on specs only.  Yes the GH5 was spec filled with great IBIS.  But the GH5's image quality at 10bit never held up, ever.

I've worked on a lot of GH5 footage that just falls apart in color grading.   Colorist around the world know this to be true.

So, genuine question.  What are you looking for when you say the image "never held up"?  Is this a value judgement in terms of how nice things were, or was there some objective measure?

After watching a bunch of 8-bit vs 10-bit comparison videos where people tried to break 8-bit with varying levels of success, I tried to break the 10-bit and couldn't.

For example, I found an image with subtle graduations and applied a curve that looked like a square-wave, way beyond anything that would occur in real-life:

Or are you referring to a situation where a more normal colour grade exposed compression artefacts or colour glitches in the image?

1 hour ago, Super8 said:

I'm sure it's a fun camera to use.

My issue with GH5 footage i've graded is the color and DP's that use it miss the proper DOF that gives you the proper cinematic look.  Depth and lens choice always seems off or settled on.

I agree that depth and lens choice is very poorly discussed by MFT users.  For example, the fact that the default MFT pro lens is the 12-35/2.8 and it's the equivalent of a 24-70/5.6 but people always refer to it as a 2.8 in the same way as a 24-70/2.8 lens for FF is infuriating to me.  The Sigma 18-35/1.8 with 0.71x SB is equivalent to an f2.5 is better in this regard, but I agree that it's not spoken about in the way it should be.

I bought fast primes, knowing what depth I was interested in getting, but it's a compromise.  Of course, on the other hand, I also use a 70-210/4 zoom + 2X TC for sports, and the money I saved from not having to buy a 400mm FF lens paid for my entire setup, so there is that.

[fuzzynormal]

31 minutes ago, kye said:

the default MFT pro lens is the 12-35/2.8 and it's the equivalent of a 24-70/5.6 but people always refer to it as a 2.8 in the same way as a 24-70/2.8 lens for FF is infuriating to me.

Ability of a lens to gather light and the lens DOF aesthetic have always been intertwined --but are definitely different things. 

Hobbyist really crawl up their own butt with this stuff sometimes. 

Having masterful wisdom of the nuances of technical craft is important and nice to have. But, let's be honest, it's not the end-all-be-all. Many other decisions are much more impactful when solving movie making problems. 

[noone]

3 hours ago, Super8 said:

No.  What case study have you seen that proves your fear mongering?  

The market will not shrink to one tenth of it's current size.  The adjustments now are trimming the fat and companies that weren't profitable.   The industry is not going anywhere and current companies will take up sales between them. 

All it does is put money into the remaining companies.

 

What case study have you got to say i am wrong?

OF course if something is made in smaller numbers it will cost more.    R&D costs to the companies are not going to get cheaper (unless they cut back) and the cost per unit will have to be more expensive to pay for it.     Same with the equipment to make it, it has to pay its way.   Olympus has been selling plenty of cameras but they have not made a profit very often in the last decade.

As to the market shrinking, ten percent was just a figure for argument stake.    Nobody knows what it will shrink to but the trend is down, nothing but down and as phones get better and people who grew up with real cameras gets older and weaker, demand will diminish further.

I just went to a major store that includes cameras as part of its range to get a SD card and they are still selling the RX100 FIRST version new and for silly money with a version iii also for more than it is worth and a recent model for more than many DSLRs. 

For most people a phone will do as good a job at photos and video now for what they want as well as a lot more things and for less money.

 

[Video Hummus]

Boy, all those great films shot on Super35 suddenly look like shit when FF DSLRs came out.

That Zombie movie, 28 Days later, I liked it until I learned some of it was shot on a Canon DV1. WTF! They should have used an ARRI for that most iconic bridge shot. Ruined it for me.

Most of the new blade runner 2049 was shot with a Zeiss T1 lenses but was stopped down to f2.8, 4, and 5.6. Deakins must be an idiot.

This obsession, and yes it’s an obsession, with FF and max aperture shallow DoF lust is missing the forest for the trees. Very little of that shit matters in cinema.

You can slap a Vintage FF lens on a GH5 and hand it to Deakins and he would shoot a Hollywood movie with it and the audience wouldn’t give a shit what it was shot on if the story, lighting, acting, and production are good. The camera is peanuts.

Only people that care are the sensor gear obsessives and the industry snobs.

I’m also still waiting for that FF 24-200 f4 that fits in a cargo pants pocket....who will make it first?

And before you bandwagon the notion that I think MFT is somehow inherently better than some other format (like a lot of FF zealots do for whatever reason) I like MFT because it’s a CHOICE. I get a choice of format to shoot in with unique advantages. But instead we have this pervasive FF “green-blue algae bloom” sucking all the oxygen out of the discussion.

I can also guarantee you when the first smartphone puts a MFT sized sensor on the back suddenly MFT will be the bees-knees again...funny how they works. 

[noone]

1 hour ago, kye said:

  Smartphones are terrible with long focal lengths as they're too large physically for the form-factor, and are bad in low light.  FF cameras aren't pocketable and the lenses are very large.  

Smart phones are not great sensor wise but it is the other stuff that is making them better.    Some of the recent high end smart phones are actually very good in low light (comparatively).

Longer lenses for them are where the next advance will come and when it does, that will be another batch of real cameras rendered obsolete.

They are using folded optics and multiple cameras to advance as well as software..

FF cameras will never be as small as smaller sensor cameras in general but geez the original A7 trio are smaller and lighter than many APSC and some M43 cameras and SOME FF lenses are tiny. (others really are huge for what they are).

I actually hope real cameras hang on forever and again, I probably use a phone with a camera even less than anyone here but I see lots of older photographers giving up heavier stuff and going to M43 but more increasing to phones

[kye]

1 hour ago, fuzzynormal said:

Ability of a lens to gather light and the lens DOF aesthetic have always been intertwined --but are definitely different things. 

Hobbyist really crawl up their own butt with this stuff sometimes. 

Having masterful wisdom of the nuances of technical craft is important and nice to have. But, let's be honest, it's not the end-all-be-all. Many other decisions are much more impactful when solving movie making problems. 

Absolutely.  

One thing I really like about MFT is that I can use my f0.95 primes to stop-down to f1.4 and get a bump in sharpness, I get an exposure about T1.4, and a DoF equivalent to a FF f2.8.  Of course, FF has the advantage with lower ISO noise, but getting a higher FF equivalent T-stop while keeping a FF equivalent F-stop makes up for the difference in many ways.

I am also a bit in love with a shallower DoF, I'll admit it.  However, it's part of a larger creative context, which I'll elaborate on a bit.

There are a number of things that make an image look 'cinematic', or if you don't like that word (some don't), make an image have a higher level of production value.  These include things like lighting the talent brighter than the background (or the other way around), creating colour contrast with things like orange/teal grades that provide more subject/background contrast, fog to make distant objects less contrasted and also create rays if desired, using out-of-focus backgrounds, using subject and camera movement which outline the varying planes in the scene, etc.  One thing that all of these things has in common is that they all emphasise depth in the image.

I think that creating depth in the image is a fundamental goal of the medium due to the fact that photography and videography is the attempt to replicate a 3D world on a 2D medium.  

To this end, Deakin and I operate in very different worlds.  Deakin will use all of the above and more to create depth, whereas I operate in completely uncontrolled conditions, with available light, and often without the ability to even move the camera around that much to manage subject to background distance.  So I am interested in having a slightly shallower DoF in my images in order to partly compensate for the less ideal other factors, and also in situations where I have a greater subject distance (or a higher ratio of camera/subject distance : subject/background distance than Deakin would choose) I want a lens that goes faster so that I can get the same amount of background defocus under the more challenging situation.

This is kind of like when we've talked in other threads about shutter angle and someone said that they like having a >180 shutter angle in order to compensate for other areas where their image is a bit lacking.

I bang on about tech on these forums probably more than the average member, but I do so in the context of the creative output.  I do it so I can get nice images, and my learning journey has been one where I work out what matters more, what matters less, and what doesn't matter at all, to me at least.

1 hour ago, noone said:

Smart phones are not great sensor wise but it is the other stuff that is making them better.    Some of the recent high end smart phones are actually very good in low light (comparatively).

Longer lenses for them are where the next advance will come and when it does, that will be another batch of real cameras rendered obsolete.

They are using folded optics and multiple cameras to advance as well as software..

FF cameras will never be as small as smaller sensor cameras in general but geez the original A7 trio are smaller and lighter than many APSC and some M43 cameras and SOME FF lenses are tiny. (others really are huge for what they are).

I actually hope real cameras hang on forever and again, I probably use a phone with a camera even less than anyone here but I see lots of older photographers giving up heavier stuff and going to M43 but more increasing to phones

I'm aware of smartphones getting better in low light and also in the folded camera modules with longer focal lengths.  I had a few long conversations with my dad about the Light L16 as had it lived up to its claims of being a DSLR replacement (it didn't) he would have bought one.  His primary interest was using it in very high dust environments which due to it being completely sealed would have been a great fit.  He's killed a number of cameras and has now basically given up due to this.  We talked about those P&S 'tough' cameras that have a standard zoom but are completely waterproof, but the image never stacked up.

The A7 series are definitely quite small, and I was considering an A7iii + 24-105/4 setup against the GH5 back when I bought the GH5.  From memory it was the 10-bit and better IBIS that sealed the deal for me.  I was interested in the better low-light of the A7iii, but in the end the GH5 with fast primes sees slightly better in the dark than I do, and that's good enough for me.  If I can't see it, I won't miss shooting it.

I've said above that I think that a mid-sized sensor will hang on.  I don't know if it will be MFT or 1inch but considering there aren't a lot of ILC 1" cameras, I think MFT has the edge in that situation, although the RX series sure seems to have made a lot of sales.  The advancements in smartphone low light and performance will trickle into the mid-sized sensor format, so in that sense it will benefit from the tiny smartphone sensor market, and the mum and dad taking photos of junior running around in normal indoor lighting, which places very high but completely practical requirements on low-light performance.

[newfoundmass]

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

Boy, all those great films shot on Super35 suddenly look like shit when FF DSLRs came out.

That Zombie movie, 28 Days later, I liked it until I learned some of it was shot on a Canon DV1. WTF! They should have used an ARRI for that most iconic bridge shot. Ruined it for me.

Most of the new blade runner 2049 was shot with a Zeiss T1 lenses but was stopped down to f2.8, 4, and 5.6. Deakins must be an idiot.

This obsession, and yes it’s an obsession, with FF and max aperture shallow DoF lust is missing the forest for the trees. Very little of that shit matters in cinema.

You can slap a Vintage FF lens on a GH5 and hand it to Deakins and he would shoot a Hollywood movie with it and the audience wouldn’t give a shit what it was shot on if the story, lighting, acting, and production are good. The camera is peanuts.

Only people that care are the sensor gear obsessives and the industry snobs.

I’m also still waiting for that FF 24-200 f4 that fits in a cargo pants pocket....who will make it first?

And before you bandwagon the notion that I think MFT is somehow inherently better than some other format (like a lot of FF zealots do for whatever reason) I like MFT because it’s a CHOICE. I get a choice of format to shoot in with unique advantages. But instead we have this pervasive FF “green-blue algae bloom” sucking all the oxygen out of the discussion.

I can also guarantee you when the first smartphone puts a MFT sized sensor on the back suddenly MFT will be the bees-knees again...funny how they works. 

To me that's what's so liberating about M43. If I want to rig up my GH5 so it's more of a cinema camera, I can. But alternatively I can fit the 12-35 and 35-100 in my pockets, and go completely stripped down. I really can't do that with a FF camera because of how large and heavy the lenses are. 

I get the appeal of FF, particularly as it pertains to low light, but in general there's very little I can't do with a little effort on M43 that I could do with FF. With FF though it's not really possible to overcome the size and weight benefits of M43. That's not to say shooting with FF is unpleasant, I really love the S1 and I lust after the S1H, but it's nowhere as convenient. 

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

The truth is people that can't see beyond sensor size have been claiming M43 is a dying system pretty much from the start. This Olympus news certainly isn't a positive for the system as a whole, but I don't know how much Panasonic depended on Olympus, or how much they factored into the viability of the system in Panasonic's eyes. Panasonic really focused on hybrid and video, while Olympus largely focused on photography. There wasn't a ton of overlap between the two. 

I suspect that was largely intentional, so that they didn't too directly attack each, but instead helped build out a well rounded system to attract users.
 

  

10 hours ago, noone said:

The top ten cameras on DXO are all MF or FF and came out 2014 (2) , 2015 (2). 2016 (1 but the highest overall scoring), 2017 (2), 2018 (1) and 2019 (2).....Numbers one and two are MF from 2016 and 2014....

The Canon R sits at 34, just behind a MF camera from 2008 (yes 2008).

The highest scoring APSC camera is the Nikon D7200 from 2015 and sits ahead of some older FF and MF cameras.

Your D5200 (2012) still rates very highly and a head of some older MF and even some FF cameras from the same year.

 Medium format cameras do have a slower refresh rate with their models, and there are less of them.

So it doesn't surprise me to see a MF camera from 2016 or even 2014 in the top ten on DXOmark

 

  

10 hours ago, noone said:

Phone technology is advancing MUCH faster than normal camera tech so five years in phone terms is probably more like ten in camera terms  which is why ALL the camera makers are doomed unless they switch to "phones with cameras" Funnily enough Olympus HAD a mobile phone division but sold it off years ago and sold it to the same company now going to buy Olympus camera division....i guess that says it all really).

I suspect JIP will do the same with the Olympus camera division as they did with the Olympus mobile phone division.

 

Edit:
https://www.industryweek.com/finance/article/21958034/olympus-sells-mobile-phone-unit

Ah, I see they were just a mobile phone retailer, Olympus never made phones themselves?
 

[Super8]

2 hours ago, noone said:

For most people a phone will do as good a job at photos and video now for what they want as well as a lot more things and for less money.

 

My case study is common sense based on the current market. 

Do you have any data to show what you say will come true?

Quote

Olympus has been selling plenty of cameras but they have not made a profit very often in the last decade.

Where do you get your information? Please share it. 

Here's info from Olympus website:

OPTION 1
GET THE OM-D E-M1X FREE

AN $8,799.96 VALUE! -$2,999.99 SAVINGS

YOUR PRICE $5,799.97

That's a huge discount and still a lot of money for a camera (with 3 lenses)

Quote

Nobody knows what it will shrink to but the trend is down, nothing but down and as phones get better and people who grew up with real cameras gets older and weaker, demand will diminish further.

This also is 100% not true.  I know 21 year olds that travel the world and take photo's with their awsome smart phone and they come back and say the photo's look like crap and don't do justice to what a real camera could do. And the same 21 yr old is willing to buy a real camera.

You're missing any common sense with the current market and what drives it.  The desire to create content from photographs to video is connected and will always be.  The current creative groups (all of us on the board and in the market) is not made up of old school film loading photographers or videographers.  People might drop out and do something else but professional and pro hobbyist are embracing the camera market.

The access to cameras, computers and diving into You Tube and other outlets to learn is amazing. 

The seasoned professionals and production houses will continue to buy new gear and content has to be made.

Netflix and other content providers will only increase the quality that they deliver and 6k-8K will be the new 4K.   So some of the falloff in the market will happen at the same-time new growth will happen because technology changes and improves. 

Quote

I just went to a major store that includes cameras as part of its range to get a SD card and they are still selling the RX100 FIRST version new and for silly money with a version iii also for more than it is worth and a recent model for more than many DSLRs. 

So what?  You comment makes not sense and has no point at all.  MSRP and SRP is who sets the prices.  Online or brick and mortar store cannot slash and reduce the price of good sold, unless they are open box or refurbished  items.  This is the agreement store have with manufacturing companies.  Stores can't undercut other resellers in most cases.  They have a set amount they can discount products.

 

 

 

 

 

[noone]

1 hour ago, Super8 said:

My case study is common sense based on the current market. 

Do you have any data to show what you say will come true?

Where do you get your information? Please share it. 

Here's info from Olympus website:

OPTION 1
GET THE OM-D E-M1X FREE

AN $8,799.96 VALUE! -$2,999.99 SAVINGS

YOUR PRICE $5,799.97

That's a huge discount and still a lot of money for a camera (with 3 lenses)

This also is 100% not true.  I know 21 year olds that travel the world and take photo's with their awsome smart phone and they come back and say the photo's look like crap and don't do justice to what a real camera could do. And the same 21 yr old is willing to buy a real camera.

You're missing any common sense with the current market and what drives it.  The desire to create content from photographs to video is connected and will always be.  The current creative groups (all of us on the board and in the market) is not made up of old school film loading photographers or videographers.  People might drop out and do something else but professional and pro hobbyist are embracing the camera market.

The access to cameras, computers and diving into You Tube and other outlets to learn is amazing. 

The seasoned professionals and production houses will continue to buy new gear and content has to be made.

Netflix and other content providers will only increase the quality that they deliver and 6k-8K will be the new 4K.   So some of the falloff in the market will happen at the same-time new growth will happen because technology changes and improves. 

So what?  You comment makes not sense and has no point at all.  MSRP and SRP is who sets the prices.  Online or brick and mortar store cannot slash and reduce the price of good sold, unless they are open box or refurbished  items.  This is the agreement store have with manufacturing companies.  Stores can't undercut other resellers in most cases.  They have a set amount they can discount products.

 

 

 

 

 

Your OPINION is noted, I disagree and as far as I am concerned YOU have shown zero common sense and zero evidence.

You SAY you are a colourist but you come across as a angry kid in his mums basement and until I see evidence otherwise, I will be thinking of you as such.

As for Oly not making a profit on imaging? You tell me the last year they did?   Certainly not for the last three years.    I wish they had of (they would not be in the mess they are in otherwise).

 

[noone]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Absolutely.  

One thing I really like about MFT is that I can use my f0.95 primes to stop-down to f1.4 and get a bump in sharpness, I get an exposure about T1.4, and a DoF equivalent to a FF f2.8.  Of course, FF has the advantage with lower ISO noise, but getting a higher FF equivalent T-stop while keeping a FF equivalent F-stop makes up for the difference in many ways.

I am also a bit in love with a shallower DoF, I'll admit it.  However, it's part of a larger creative context, which I'll elaborate on a bit.

 

Does not always work that way, some times it does.

The FF Sony 55 1. and 5 1.8 both have a T stop of 1.8 on the Sony FF cameras (might be a bit of correction in camera there or very little loss and it is just rounded up to 1.8) and against that a lens like the Olympus 25 1.2 ALSO has a T stop of 1.8 on am EM 1.2 so it will depend on individual lenses and cameras.

 

[Super8]

53 minutes ago, noone said:

Your OPINION is noted, I disagree and as far as I am concerned YOU have shown zero common sense and zero evidence.

You SAY you are a colourist but you come across as a angry kid in his mums basement and until I see evidence otherwise, I will be thinking of you as such.

As for Oly not making a profit on imaging? You tell me the last year they did?   Certainly not for the last three years.    I wish they had of (they would not be in the mess they are in otherwise).

 

What does my colorist have to do with this thread? I really don't care what you think about my colorist abilities.  Most on here never tried to comment about video comparisons that I posted.  And like most on here I don't post links to my work.  I actually shared my issues with BMP6K and having to correct footage. Not sure why you have issue with that?

I actually do a lot more than color grading.  I video edit, write scripts, direct, color grade, photography, produce and whole lot of other artist things. 

I never ever said Olympus was turning a profit.  The reports say they didn't.

I think Kye has me beat with the angry kid basement fanboy. 

 

[kye]

1 hour ago, noone said:

Does not always work that way, some times it does.

The FF Sony 55 1. and 5 1.8 both have a T stop of 1.8 on the Sony FF cameras (might be a bit of correction in camera there or very little loss and it is just rounded up to 1.8) and against that a lens like the Olympus 25 1.2 ALSO has a T stop of 1.8 on am EM 1.2 so it will depend on individual lenses and cameras.

True.  Lenses sometimes have T-Stops slower than their F-Stop due to transmission loss, but when comparing between sensor sizes and given reasonably modern glass, it's kind of safe to assume that the T-Stop of a lens is relatively close to it's F-stop.

[kye]

32 minutes ago, Super8 said:

I think Kye has me beat with the angry kid basement fanboy. 

Maybe you could help a basement dweller out and reply to the grading questions I asked about the GH5 image not holding up?

6 hours ago, kye said:

So, genuine question.  What are you looking for when you say the image "never held up"?  Is this a value judgement in terms of how nice things were, or was there some objective measure?

After watching a bunch of 8-bit vs 10-bit comparison videos where people tried to break 8-bit with varying levels of success, I tried to break the 10-bit and couldn't.

For example, I found an image with subtle graduations and applied a curve that looked like a square-wave, way beyond anything that would occur in real-life:

Or are you referring to a situation where a more normal colour grade exposed compression artefacts or colour glitches in the image?

It was a genuine question and however basement-y you think I am, a gracious individual would realise that for every person who comments, there are dozens more who follow along silently, and we could all do with learning more.

It would help us to understand your perspective as well.

Lots of people blow through these forums and when they have a different perspective or different requirements or standards then it's easy to get riled up, but it's worth it if they manage to explain their perspective and then the rest of us can understand why they have particular requirements or opinions.

Sometimes it even happens that when they share theirs, we can share ours and very very occasionally, we all learn something.

[1Ale82]

The first ever camera I touched was the analog camera from Olympus of my father. It's from the 1980s and it is still working today even if no one is using it any more.

Always sad news when decades of expertise and craftmanship goes torn up by the stock market logic and the so called "investment companies", which are nothing more than the legal, pusillanimous and modern form of a buccaneer.

[ade towell]

9 hours ago, Super8 said:

DP's that use it miss the proper DOF that gives you the proper cinematic look.

You really are a clown, or are you trolling... hard to tell with the amount of crap you constantly come out with