How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

[NorBro]

Also, what's my vested interest in the availability of camera work in 2500? Ludite accusations are an ad hominem distraction from holes in the argument

There's no argument because I can't convince you to change your view about the future, especially when we both don't know what it will be like. But I don't know why you insist on having these pointless conversations every other day.

Some are nice, but others are just repetitive because I will never understand how your brain thinks about some things. That's not a distraction; just a personal point of view.

If your thought-processes were more open-minded I would really love to learn from you, but they aren't, IMO.

[ahalpert]

My opinion is that as long as there is physical camerawork, there will need to be sophisticated means of moving the camera smoothly through space. That was the point of the comparison between Gone With the Wind and 1917. Many technological changes. Some common underlying fundamentals.

It could be a drone, it could be a phone. But I expect there to be some common underlying fundamentals.

Only a totally virtual production environment would do away with those. That's possible, but I think it has fundamental drawbacks that will never be overcome. Anyway, we have it already. It's called computer animated films

Optics/physics never change either. As long as there is physical camerawork, people will see serious cameras doing serious things, the best-looking stuff they ever watch

[DLD]

OMD (ex-Olympus) says they have no chip shortages to negatively effect their production of ... something. This bodes well for whatever new models might be coming out in 2022 across the entire range.

Also, the new Leica (M11) has some very interesting features, including triple resolution for photos. It steals the A7IV full frame 60 MPX sensor, which also suggests that Panasonic, probably S1RII, will have it down the road That should permit the higher res sensor for either GH-6 (which it probably won't) or GH-7, something in the low-30s a la A7IVor perhaps even 8K/42 MPX for GH-7.

As to the immediate future, I see even smaller sizes for the high end pro work, a reduction similar to the Minis dropping down from the full size Alexas. The aim is the RX1 series, though the next stage will be closer to current high end full frame models. Or Komodo.

[ahalpert]

But in my mind, they could have shot that scene in at least 20 different ways and it would have been amazing.

The whole movie is shot as a faux oner (a la Rope). You can argue that it was the wrong decision. But you can't argue that the effect is the same as montage

[ahalpert]

.

As to the immediate future, I see even smaller sizes for the high end pro work, a reduction similar to the Minis dropping down from the full size Alexas. The aim is the RX1 series, though the next stage will be closer to current high end full frame models. Or Komodo.

Theoretically, the camera could become as small as a sensor with a storage bay and you could control it wirelessly

However, I don't think that would be practical. My guess is a high-end camera won't be smaller than the collection of mounting points, handles, buttons, displays, and ports on the Venice 2. Because all that stuff is way more useful in daily operation than shedding the last couple inches or pounds. You could have a tiny specialty camera for sticking in corners or on drones, but I don't think it's desirable for regular use

[Zim]

As for the photos I think it can go both ways. I see pros saying how amazing an iPhone photo looks just because they want it to look amazing. I see a ton of excuses made for Smartphone cameras because someone wants to push a certain narrative or they think its neat how far they have come. When I look at a lot of iPhone videos I think they look like garbage. We nitpick the most insane details when it comes to pro cameras and I don't make excuse for Smartphones. I think the video sucks. I think the photo detail looks like mud. I think the fake DOF looks like a five year old did it in Photoshop. When posted to social media nobody cares but without an absolute doubt if I shoot side by side with even my GH4 the GH4 will smoke the iPhone in almost every possible way. I'm not sure how that can be considered a bias. It has nothing to do with price. I feel Nikon D5200 stills look much better than iPhone photos. Has nothing to do with price at all. I paid $250 for my GH1 and its stills look better than iPhone stills.

Maybe you are looking at iPhone 6 photos! My iPhone 12 Pro Max can take really good pictures and video. It is a big improvement even from my last iPhone the Xr.

You can take bad pictures with even the best camera. You can use apps like Filmic Pro or add on a lens.

Sure if you have a nice Nikon or Canon you can take better pictures if you know what you are doing. But you can get some great pictures with the new iPhones and it fits in your pocket.

So if I buy a $10,000 guitar will I be able to play like Jimi Hendrix?

[Zim]

Sure but that's another form of the bias that advantages real camera operators over phone operators. Expensive wine tastes better to people than cheap wine. And I bet that photos from expensive cameras look better to them if they know the price

I went to a niece's wedding. I took my Nikon D300s with me just to take a few pictures. They had hired some guy with a bunch of expensive and pretty Canon gear. During the day I was talking to the bride and groom standing by the lake. I saw a great picture to take so I posed them and took it. Well right after the paid 'real camera operator' came over and said "that is a good spot for a picture"
Just having a real camera doesn't mean you know what you are doing.

I could take my iPhone 12 Pro Max and get really good pictures at a wedding. If I wanted to do it for living I would use two cameras with different lenses on them.

I bet Eddie Van Halen could have made my $200 guitar sound awesome too.

[DLD]

Theoretically, the camera could become as small as a sensor with a storage bay and you could control it wirelessly

However, I don't think that would be practical. My guess is a high-end camera won't be smaller than the collection of mounting points, handles, buttons, displays, and ports on the Venice 2. Because all that stuff is way more useful in daily operation than shedding the last couple inches or pounds. You could have a tiny specialty camera for sticking in corners or on drones, but I don't think it's desirable for regular use

A friend FB posted a 1994 photo of Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, so I began to search for the current Bullock photos, 'cos she hasn't aged for the last 27 years. I ended up finding a BTS shot from her new rom-com, with a cam-op ... eh, sorry, videographer holding a rig similar to what you see on those large sensor Sony's at the NFL games - a belt, a few rods, a few springs and a small camera, probably an Alexa Mini. It's an an action-adventure-romance film too similar to Romancing the Stone, so jiggling footage is expected. But, drop the size of the cameras, drop the size and weight of the gimbal, add IBIS digital or optical (or frame for it), finish it off with a video wall and you up the speed of production by a lot. And that's going to be the key.

[ahalpert]

. But, drop the size of the cameras, drop the size and weight of the gimbal, add IBIS digital or optical (or frame for it), finish it off with a video wall and you up the speed of production by a lot. And that's going to be the key.

I don't think the size and weight of the camera or gimbal are slowing down production. Or IBIS. IBIS also has drawbacks. But if they have lower standards then it could be helpful. The problem with lowering your standards is that your work is no longer any better than what you can see on TV and streamers. Then there's no Sandra bullock anymore because there are no star vehicles to create her.

Also, the new season of star trek discovery is clearly using video walls in its holodeck scenes, and I can tell because it looks like ****, especially when the camera moves. Whereas they always used to shoot trek holodecks in a physical location or set, which made holodecks seem like magic technology rather than an obviously VR experience. There's room for improvement, but there are limits

[NorBro]

The whole movie is shot as a faux oner (a la Rope). You can argue that it was the wrong decision. But you can't argue that the effect is the same as montage

I actually called D (I call him D), and recommended he use a drone with a camera on the bottom heading towards earth. It would start up high in the sky and drop down all the way to the ground by the time it's all finished. A different perspective for the running bodies, explosions, location. I animated the sequence for him and added some clouds and even a plane at one point flying into the shot (under the drone) and he loved it but ultimately decided against it. Hot dog.

[Thomas Smet]

Maybe you are looking at iPhone 6 photos! My iPhone 12 Pro Max can take really good pictures and video. It is a big improvement even from my last iPhone the Xr.

You can take bad pictures with even the best camera. You can use apps like Filmic Pro or add on a lens.

Sure if you have a nice Nikon or Canon you can take better pictures if you know what you are doing. But you can get some great pictures with the new iPhones and it fits in your pocket.

So if I buy a $10,000 guitar will I be able to play like Jimi Hendrix?

I have an 11 pro max. Yes they are getting better but they are still overly processed. Maybe you don't see but I sure do. I'm not talking about viewing them on social media but print quality or being able to zoom into the photos. If you just want images to look at on a phone screen sure they are great. In no way shape or form do they hold up to serious raw photos from a larger sensor and lens. Print a 11x14" from those phone images and see how well it holds up. What about the dynamic range and being able to pull detail out of shadows? Try to get some DOF from a complex subject that can throw off the depth map.

I'm not saying they are crap but they are not in the same league. In many ways they are equal to a $100 point and shoot camera. Its the massive amount of processing that makes it look better. The kind of processing we usually do with tools like NeatVideo in post. Helps a ton but its all processed and digital looking in the end. The NR on the iPhone isn't nearly as sophisticated as NeatVideo either.

The reality is that tiny sensor and lens can only do so much. Its math and calculations that pick up the slack. They sometimes return decent results but thats just it. Decent.

Let me ask you this. If the GH6 put out the kind of stills and video you get from the iPhone would you be as excited about it? Thats what I'm talking about a pass. Like how politicians of one party get a pass by voters of that party and then highly critical of the opposite party doing the same thing. Its called a bias. We all give the iPhone a pass because of what it is and how impressed we are by what it can do.

I prefer to see it what it is and right now thats inferior quality. You can be hurt or upset by that all you want. You have that right to defend it. I'm just stating I think the quality is not there compared to other options. I don't think I'm wrong either. If I compare the stills and video side by side to other cameras I see lots of flaws I do not like. Yes its very impressive considering what it is but I'm not ok with just impressive for what it is.

[Thomas Smet]

My point is if the iPhone is good enough for some of you thats wonderfully spectacular. Go ahead and use it. I'm super happy for you. Just don't force the rest of us to use it or convince us we should give up what we like just so we all use the same thing. I don't want to use a iPhone for the same reason I don't want to use a video camera or a 1" fixed lens camera anymore. I just don't want to and it doesn't fit my needs.

We all understand the iPhone can do some neat stuff and with care it can create impressive results. Many may not even be able to tell the difference. Thing is I don't care. I want to use better cameras and thats perfectly ok. I will also integrate my iPhone into certain situations. Yes even I use it for video and photos sometimes. Its a great tool to have. But it will be a very long time before its my only tool with no other backup or creative options. We are trying to move away from fixed lens cameras not towards them. Apple needs to solve a ton of problems before myself and others will ever take them seriously for video. A main one being you cannot adjust aperture and can only adjust shutter speed. Any outdoor iPhone video looks horrendous to me because of the shutter speed. There are ND filter options out there that help but how many are going to do that?

[stoneinapond]

That should permit the higher res sensor for either GH-6 (which it probably won't) or GH-7, something in the low-30s a la A7IVor perhaps even 8K/42 MPX for GH-7.

It warms the cockles of my heart to hear DLD talk of a GH7

[DLD]

It warms the cockles of my heart to hear DLD talk of a GH7

Here's an idea - Lumix is sold/given away to OMD, which now becomes the sole MFT company. There's some value to Lumix brand name, although it'd have to move on without "Panasonic" attached to it.

[Zim]

My point is if the iPhone is good enough for some of you thats wonderfully spectacular. Go ahead and use it. I'm super happy for you. Just don't force the rest of us to use it or convince us we should give up what we like just so we all use the same thing. I don't want to use a iPhone for the same reason I don't want to use a video camera or a 1" fixed lens camera anymore. I just don't want to and it doesn't fit my needs.

We all understand the iPhone can do some neat stuff and with care it can create impressive results. Many may not even be able to tell the difference. Thing is I don't care. I want to use better cameras and thats perfectly ok. I will also integrate my iPhone into certain situations. Yes even I use it for video and photos sometimes. Its a great tool to have. But it will be a very long time before its my only tool with no other backup or creative options. We are trying to move away from fixed lens cameras not towards them. Apple needs to solve a ton of problems before myself and others will ever take them seriously for video. A main one being you cannot adjust aperture and can only adjust shutter speed. Any outdoor iPhone video looks horrendous to me because of the shutter speed. There are ND filter options out there that help but how many are going to do that?

with filmic pro you can lock the shutter at 1/48 and with a ND it looks good. You can adjust aperture too. You should try it.
No one is forcing you. It is one option of many