Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • say_doyster
    replied
    Originally posted by DLD View Post
    The Nikkei article is your basic CYE for the cartel. The author doesn't even mention that Panasonic and Olympus buy their sensors from Sony (which also happens to be Japanese, in case you didn't know), their alleged competitor. The important tidbit in the article is the mention of the company placing all its branches on separate accounting sheets, Although Lumix is still part of the Entertainment & Video division, it'd be very difficult for the video manufacturing department to show positive results. And then the managers of the Entertainment & Video will have to decide if they need to have a money losing presence in their midst.

    Another interesting tidbit is that the entire photo-video industry has about $4,000,000 in annual revenues. The smartphone industry is over $400. Billion.
    I do not know the numbers, but I want to point out that B&H probably does more than $4,000,000.00 in camera sales in a month - I think you meant $4 Billion (or more worldwide), not $4 Million.

    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    They won't stop making them, but the devices themselves might become more futuristic; stuff you see in the movies where a cube might open up to develop itself into something that captures high-quality motion pictures.

    Leave a comment:


  • stoneinapond
    replied
    Originally posted by DLD View Post

    Another interesting tidbit is that the entire photo-video industry has about $4,000,000 in annual revenues. The smartphone industry is over $400. Billion.
    That's a disingenuous comparison. Nobody buys a phone solely for the camera and nobody buys a camera to use as a phone (except for those monstrosities Panasonic and RED released way back when).

    My question is, will companies at some point stop making cameras altogether? That is in many ways the thrust of your argument. My response is no, because despite how much phone makers can enhance the images produced by their cameras, it's still an artificial process. Yes, it's close for certain types of imaging but you can't defy physics when it comes to light traveling down a tube full of glass striking a large sensor. Perhaps in a dystopian future there will only be one camera manufacturer but I doubt that will be the case. There is always someone who bets against the giants and achieves a modicum of success (Blackmagic?).

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Smet
    replied
    I would like to see all these stats for every year from the past decade or two. I looked up Panasonic market share for 2009 when the GH1 first came out and it was 7.6%. If its not the same source its hard to compare exactly but Panasonic didn't start out with great market share either. I'm sure that got a lot better with the GH2, GH3, GH4 and GH5. I would rather put it all into perspective based on each year vs just saying the sky is falling because Panasonic only has 8%. To me that seems just about right.

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by DLD View Post
    .

    Another interesting tidbit is that the entire photo-video industry has about $4,000,000 in annual revenues. The smartphone industry is over $400. Billion.
    "Revenue in the Sports Cars market segment is projected to reach US$67,712m in 2022"

    "Revenue in the Passenger Cars market is projected to reach US$2,048,127.4m in 2022."

    https://www.statista.com/outlook/mmo...cars/worldwide

    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    The Nikkei article is your basic CYE for the cartel. The author doesn't even mention that Panasonic and Olympus buy their sensors from Sony (which also happens to be Japanese, in case you didn't know), their alleged competitor. The important tidbit in the article is the mention of the company placing all its branches on separate accounting sheets, Although Lumix is still part of the Entertainment & Video division, it'd be very difficult for the video manufacturing department to show positive results. And then the managers of the Entertainment & Video will have to decide if they need to have a money losing presence in their midst.

    Another interesting tidbit is that the entire photo-video industry has about $4,000,000 in annual revenues. The smartphone industry is over $400. Billion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Smet
    replied
    https://www.43rumors.com/nikkei-pana...can-save-them/

    Kind of an odd statement considering OM is doing well for photography. Lets be real, Panasonic was never a big seller for photography. There was a time when their more entry models brought in a lot of travel photographers and the compact size appealed to certain markets. On the pro side I don't Panasonic ever had a decent share of the market. Video really was their huge selling point and they built a reputation as kings of DSLR video. They kind of got caught with their pants down in maintaining that reputation and allow too much competition to catch up and beat them on the video front.

    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    Originally posted by ahalpert View Post

    I think my nissan sentra is great. I'm not a race car driver
    You may want to take a Phantom out for a spin. If you like it, see if you can fit it into your budget.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Smet
    replied
    https://nofilmschool.com/2017/08/yed...solution-myths

    I don't agree with all of this 100% but he makes a very valid point to a lot of the myths about detail. Granted he is looking at it from a cinema perspective which for a few years now is actually trailing what consumers can see at home. Both detail and HDR has greatly surpassed what cinema can put out. Where I don't 100% agree with it is all of his sources are bayer sensors with a softer look overall with no emphasis on sharp details. Its easy to downplay the benefits of resolution when your sources are softer. The reason he is able to say 2k is good enough is because in every case his 2k is generated from over sampled sources. That means the 2k is a lot more detailed than 2k normally would be from a 2k bayer sensor.

    Where I agree is that with 4k being the norm now we are all likely is a very good place for most situations going forward. The myth is largely way over exaggerated now and has been for some time. 8k and 12k can make more sense for cinema distribution where the screens are massive but even then nobody ever sits close enough to really matter. 99.9% of viewers have never had a problem with 2k on large theater screens. Assuming 4k can have any tiny advantage 8k for sure will not.

    That really leaves 8k as only really having a tangible benefit for super large TVs for consumers to have an immersive experience. A TV so large and the distance so close that the screen fills the field of view. Then and only then could 8k maybe have some visual advantage. Thats not to say 4k couldn't be equally entertaining in that situation. We really need to find a better way to put value of detail and sharpness other than some pointless number of pixels.

    I like to think of it as two different buffets. One a very nice restaurant with 100 high quality food choices. Another at a cheaper mass produced restaurant with 200 food choices. Just because the 200 item buffet has more options doesn't make it a better meal. We fall for the illusion of more being better and assume the buffet will be amazing. Its advertised as the largest buffet in the region and the amount of choices intake us to want to believe its good food. Then we eat it and its just ok and we end up better enjoying the 100 item buffet. Less but equally enjoyable and in some cases maybe more enjoyable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Smet
    replied
    Its my understand most content intended for 8k TVs will be upscaled. Over 100 years of cinema content film or digital is at best 2k. Most TV content is 2k or worse. At least with HD we had the potential go back and get a lot of our content in HD. SD upscaled well to HD in some cases. 4k greatly limited the amount of true 4k content and 8k will be even worse. Film content converted to 4k in many cases just had larger grain and no real added detail.

    The big selling feature of these 8k appears to be its upscaling technology which means nothing we watch is ever natural anymore. Its all fudged with and over processed how some engineer thought it should be. Like the whole 24 to 120p true motion crap.

    In the end it will come down to how does 4k content look upscaled on a 8k TV vs the same size 4k TV at the same distance. The 8k can potentially have a bit interpolated fake detail at the expense of some artifacts. The 4k will be the video unaltered and in some ways could look better. Especially if one cannot benefit from the extra detail.

    Its all rather pointless really. No consumers asked for this or feel the need to have it. Its being forced on consumers so companies and store can sell more TVs.

    From a camera perspective I will eat a $100 bill if good 6k watched on a 8k TV doesn't look just as amazing as 8k on that same 8k TV. Its already going to be a challenge to visually see a difference between 4k and 8k for most TV sizes people buy. 5k and 6k will be almost impossible.

    Don't get me wrong I don't mind 8k but what I do not agree with is that anything less is now garbage. Each time we move up that becomes less true. Our upgrades have diminishing returns each time and this time is going to be very subtle. Especially since Best Buy is actually attempting to push 55" 8k TVs as if that even makes sense. I can barely see 4k on my 65". Right now as I type this my daughter is home from daycare because they had to shut down due to Covid cases. She is watching Paw Patrol in HD and I cannot see any lack of detail at all from my couch. Well its a crudely rendered cartoon but still I see no pixels.

    Some of us have had over sampled 4k for many years now anyway. The GH5 was over sampled from a 5.2k sensor. Thats a lot of extra detail to overcome some of the loss from a 4k bayer sensor. The R6 is 5.4k sensor. Many cameras now have some form of over sampling. That means finer detail to upscale to 8k. Plus the GH5 and GH6 can record 5k or 6k. Thats going to be pretty solid viewed on a 8k TV assuming the 8K TV even makes sense. The need to have true 8k in order to view on a 8k TV is just not true. But hey whatever works for everyone. If someone insists 8k is what they must have and is all that is good enough then good for them. I personally will worry about true 8k when we get to the point it really makes sense. At the rate we all replace cameras we could have a GH7 or GH8 by the time its really a must to have 8k. Future proofing is rather pointless these days.

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by DLD View Post
    .

    PS. A friend of mine's wife (she's also an old friend) just picked up iPhone13 Pro as the replacement for her 8. And she's loving it. It's not just good enough, she thinks it's great.
    I think my nissan sentra is great. I'm not a race car driver

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    . The jump from SD to HD was big. The jump from HD to 4k was decent. The jump from 4k to 8k will be a whimper.
    Hear hear!!


    There are so many other areas of improvement to make TVs stand out without using 8k to fool people.
    .
    We tend to focus on aspects that are easy to comprehend and quantify

    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    I think it's a current phase that fits the cartel release strategy - one year, the high end models come out, the next year, middle of the market; the third year, the entry level ... which, on specs, match the high end models from three years earlier. Besides, everything got shifted with Covid and the falling demand for the stand-alone cameras.

    PS. A friend of mine's wife (she's also an old friend) just picked up iPhone13 Pro as the replacement for her 8. And she's loving it. It's not just good enough, she thinks it's great. And she takes a lot of photos with it. Which reminds you that not everyone during the film era walked around with a medium format either.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    I stopped doing that but I did average about 5-7 cameras per year during the golden years of newer cameras, 2014-2019.

    Everything kind of sucks right now, and the few interesting cameras to me are $6K+.

    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    Originally posted by Samuel Dilworth View Post

    You’re obsessed with 8K. Is everyone else? If so the GH6 is doomed.
    People - well, except NorBro - don't buy several cameras a year.. (OK, they don't sell several cameras a year either). 8K is a solid buy now and will remain a viable product into the future. You can call it future proofing or what not but most buyers will go for the better specs at a given price.

    Beside, an 8K - ~ 42 MPX - suits the stills community better also.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X