Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

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

    IMO, the newest iPhones from the past few years are the most beautifully engineered gadgets in the history of anything humans have ever made. And so enjoyable to use every day.

    Comment


      beautifully engineered as in functional or pretty?
      www.VideoAbe.com

      "If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

      Comment


        Both, but mostly functional.

        Although the iPad Pros could be more beautiful than functional because they are so nice-looking and you can see & feel how powerful they are when you're holding and using one (but then that goes back to functional).

        Maybe 50/50 then?

        It depends on the mood.


        Comment


          I also feel like it sort of undercuts their iphone marketing to sell a pro camera. like, "the iphone is as good as any professional camera on the market. there's no reason to buy a real camera instead...


          ...BUT, if you want to give us $4K, we'll sell you an even better camera"

          and can you imagine how expensive their cables, batteries, accessories would be?

          but hey, I'm open to being proven wrong. I'm sure they'd make an interesting camera and that it would record prores internally. maybe they'd pull off what they did with the M1 and leverage the tech they designed for phones into a large-sensor beast
          www.VideoAbe.com

          "If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

          Comment


            Originally posted by NorBro View Post
            But honestly, even with these kooky analogies (you like that?), I don't understand why other countries don't try to make cameras or computers...
            Because of the lens mounting. Samsung tried it with NX1, beat everyone's pants on pure specs ... and realized that people had too many EF/G/E/MFT pieces of glass out there to even bother. And then they came to a conclusion that the stills-video market was too small for them to begin with and was going die off anyway (one has to assume that, when NX1 went under development, the market was riding its peak of 120 million units of 2012 or so but, when Samsung dropped out of the business entirely at the end of 2015, the downward slide was evident).

            And the stills-video consumers paid dearly for Samsung (and Kodak several years earlier) exiting because it left the industry with the Japanese state controlled cartel. But its demise wasn't all due to the smartphones. It was also a lot of miscalculation in their HQ's, which went like this:

            They felt - more or less legitimately, to be fair - that the smartphones could not compete with the MFT-APS-C-FF-MF sized sensors and so they throttled the small sensors point & shoots and priced the large sensor models significantly above of the competitive levels. And that resulted in the P&S sales completely falling off a cliff, taking with them a lot of the R&D funding and corporate overhead.

            The second miscalculation was regarding the pace of the engineering progress on the smartphone front. With high resolution sensors, periscope zooms, etc., the smartphones became more than sufficient for even the stills and video aficionados. That left the ILC niche to the hardcore junkies and the pros.

            The third variable that the Japanese understood quite well was that they couldn't trail the smartphone cameras in innovation too far and for too long and so they had to come out with slight improvements or simply disappear ... but a pace of improvement took cameras to the point of near perfection, with a very long replacement cycle. And that places them in the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation. From which, there's no way out.

            PS. What disqualifies a model for being a "state of the art" - lack of features and performance that is already present at a given price range. When GH-4 came out, the lowest priced 4K camera was 1D C at $12,000 and so it was a giant leap forward. When GH-5 came out, it was still a solid value for the MFT glass owners but no longer exclusive in its feature set. The bandied about specs and the price point for GH-6 take it out of a good value category altogether. That is probably why there's a delay in its release. 6K-into-4K is too 2019.

            Comment


              Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
              ... but hey, I'm open to being proven wrong. I'm sure they'd make an interesting camera and that it would record prores internally. maybe they'd pull off what they did with the M1 and leverage the tech they designed for phones into a large-sensor beast
              I opined long ago that there was still enough money on the table for Samsung to stay in - the high end pro with the PL-mount, the point-and-shoots, the camcorders, while keeping the NX line as the cherry on top. But their HQ in Seoul, obviously, decided that photo-video branch diverted whatever engineering expertise they were able to muster and was no longer worth the trouble. Apple, making its own decisions, has moved into video streaming and may move into the electric cars. And the ILC hub will be left with only two big'uns.

              Comment


                Originally posted by DLD View Post
                PS. What disqualifies a model for being a "state of the art" - lack of features and performance that is already present at a given price range. When GH-4 came out, the lowest priced 4K camera was 1D C at $12,000 and so it was a giant leap forward.
                The BMPC was the lowest before it and it famously announced a price drop a few days after the GH4 for $3K (it was mentioned in 2013 a year before the GH4 but most people didn't see them until 2014).

                The IQ difference was absolutely insane at the time when mostly everyone was coming from Canon DSLRs or camcorders.

                It was truly hard to believe and it was real life black magic because people couldn't understand how this was possible...and it was one of my first eye-opening life lessons in how technology companies operated.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
                  I also feel like it sort of undercuts their iphone marketing to sell a pro camera. like, "the iphone is as good as any professional camera on the market. there's no reason to buy a real camera instead...


                  ...BUT, if you want to give us $4K, we'll sell you an even better camera"

                  and can you imagine how expensive their cables, batteries, accessories would be?

                  but hey, I'm open to being proven wrong. I'm sure they'd make an interesting camera and that it would record prores internally. maybe they'd pull off what they did with the M1 and leverage the tech they designed for phones into a large-sensor beast
                  I think there is room for both...

                  Most people who love their iPhones and iPads probably don't even know Apple sells $50,000+ Mac Pros (that number/amount is real).

                  They could have their phones for the world, and their cameras for the forums.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by NorBro View Post

                    Which planet are you from...because I want to be there, too. lol

                    Point-and-shoots and camcorders pretty much disappeared, so you can't get more direct than that, lol.

                    Phones hurt the companies badly. Not because they are better, but because they are convenient and something someone already owns.

                    Anyone who had plans on purchasing a $3K-$4K-$5K+ camera is mostly irrelevant [for now] and that's the group you're talking about, which is a very small percentage of the camera sales that could have existed if the rest of the world continued to operate like it was 2005 and was still looking for a new camera for the holiday season.
                    I am basing it on the fact that before we had phones there was like that one uncle in the entire family that actually had a video camera. Most people had zero interest back then in actually buying a camera.

                    I think it was more companies realized they couldn't sell more cameras like they were hoping to sell. I don't think video cameras were ever a massive seller in the world. Same with DSLRs. It was mostly pros and a handful of cool uncles that bought cameras like that.

                    I think it was purely a coincidence that phones and a over saturated market happened around the same time.

                    Maybe it did have some impact but I don't think it was as high as they claim it was. The market likely played a big factor as well. A city like San Francisco likely did see a higher percentage of those willing to buy a video camera or DSLR. A state like WI however where I grew up I rarely knew anybody that ever bought a video camera. Thats why disposable cameras were kind of popular for awhile. People that never wanted to own a camera suddenly had an option to take photos. Then they got smart phones to do that. My argument is those same people likely would have never bought a video camera anyway. It usually took some major life event like the birth of a child for one to buy such a luxury item. Even then my Grandpa on my moms side came fro ma family of 13 kids and my grandpa on my dads side a family of 21 kids. I was the only one out of hundreds of aunts, uncles and cousins that even owned a video camera I the 90's.

                    Plus you are talking the bottom feeder cameras that grandma would go out and buy for $100. I can't imagine the pro market was hurt at all by phones. The reason why pro video cameras declined was not because of phones but because of DSLRs that could shoot video. When the 7D came out I saw an almost overnight shift from an industry looking at Sony and Canon HDV cameras to a massive exodus to DSLRs that had a new look that was almost impossible on those video cameras. It was the massive shift to DSLRs for video that killed most vide cameras and camcorders. Especially for consumers that could get a hybrid to do both and the DSLRs tended to cost much less. A good video camera back in the day was easily $3,000 while one could get a Canon or Nikon DSLR capable of some kind of HD video and a kit lens for $600. Those DSLRs also tended to be much bette in low light something we had to go the 1/2" chip route which was very expensive on video cameras. In many cases a solid $6,000. When you also factor in camera size and the ability to add different lenses its no wonder why video cameras took a massive hit. Almost every single one of us here moved away from video cameras to DSLRs or cinema cameras at some point and will likely never go back. Has absolutely zero to do with phones.

                    Comment


                      My attention span lasts about 280 characters but I hear you, whatever you think is best.

                      Comment


                        Video cameras (8mm/Hi8, VHS-C) were a big seller in the late 80'mid-90's, when their prices dropped below $1,000. Even in Wisconsin. By the mid-90's, first digital stills models appeared (in all their glorious 300K resolution) and the early adopters snapped those up pretty quickly. By 1998, a 500K Sony Mavica retailed for ~ $500 and one could insert a floppy disc into a PC and immediately send it out to hit chicks he met in AOL chat rooms.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by DLD View Post
                          Video cameras (8mm/Hi8, VHS-C) were a big seller in the late 80'mid-90's, when their prices dropped below $1,000. Even in Wisconsin. By the mid-90's, first digital stills models appeared (in all their glorious 300K resolution) and the early adopters snapped those up pretty quickly. By 1998, a 500K Sony Mavica retailed for ~ $500 and one could insert a floppy disc into a PC and immediately send it out to hit chicks he met in AOL chat rooms.
                          Yet growing up there I can tell you there were very few in my family or that I went to school with that had one. Maybe some bigger cities that wasn't the case but growing in a smaller town I can tell you it wasn't a common item for people to buy. Never really was. Not that Green Bay is exactly a small town

                          To be honest I'm not really sure what the point to all of this is. What does a smartphone have to do wit ha GH6? What does it have to do with higher end more professional gear? Not much of anything really. Ok maybe the bottom feeder cameras used quantity to help fund the higher end niche cameras but that sounds like the companies needed to shift their strategy and need t stop blaming a shifting market they seem to be incapable of adapting to. Know who is making a great go as a niche camera company? BMD. A company doesn't always need quantity sales of low end products to help fund the lower sales of quality products. Get rid of the pointless lower end cameras and focus on the niche higher end market.

                          I think Panasonic attempted to do that with their FF line but I think they aimed way too high and somehow thought it would keep them in the game. In the process they ended up upsetting the loyal m43 users they worked so hard to build up since the GH1. Panasonic had a really good thing going with m43 and yes there is an industry wide obsession with larger sensors but there were still more than enough m43 users that were happy with m43 to stick with it. People have been practically begging for a GH6 for two years and had their wallets ready to purchase a GH6. Instead Panasonic kept saying they love m43 but hey here's more FF products nobody really asked for.

                          Panasonic should have been smarter about transitioning m43 users to FF. They massively screwed up there and alienated their entire user base at a price point unrealistic to 99% of m43 users. This stuff was supposed to keep getting more affordable and instead Panasonic did a massive 180 and introduced one of the highest cost lens mounts most of us have e ver seen. Many of us invested big in m43 glass and suddenly we realized maybe that was all in vain and would soon be worthless. Not a great way to make a loyal user base feel. I likely would have taken a bullet for Lumix at one point but now its hard to believe in a company we no longer know what the plan is and what to expect for any kind of a future.

                          I want a GH6 to be amazing but sadly I think the damage was already done. Lumix fans just don't want the S series cameras and lenses and they waited too long for a GH6. Many stopped buying m43 glass years ago already and started adapting EF lenses. The L mounts horrendous EF adapting made the S series even worse with almost no logical upgrade path for anybody. I just find their FF mount choice to be completely mind boggling misguided and likely the single dumbest choice made by Panasonic in a decade. This is coming from a pretty hardcore fan as well. I refuse to invest in L mount because I just don't see it having any kind of a future. I hope I'm wrong about that but if sales don't somehow sky rocket for them I highly doubt the format will stay alive much longer. Panasonic made some killer FF bodies and yes the quality is stunning but sometimes that just isn't enough and people are not going to invest in something that isn't a sure thing.

                          If Panasonic doesn't invest some serious energy into the GH6 fast and try to win back the hearts and loyalty of the great user base it built up I'm not so sure the future looks very positive. That has zero to do with iPhones and 100% about not understanding and adapting to the market. We wanted a GH6 ASAP and we didn't get it. Instead Panasonic tried to ram down our throats a slew of FF options most of us didn't ask for. We would have happily upgraded to the bodies if we had a decent path for glass but we did not. Panasonic blew it by not creating a lens mount that could make use of m43 glass in some limited way. They blew it by partnering with Leica and initially only targeting the extreme high end users. A user base very unlikely to ever ditch Canon, Nikon or Sony at this stage in the game.

                          Panasonics biggest competition is now BMD. Film makers loved the GH4 and GH5. At the time cinema cameras were not realistic for most of us. Thats now completely changed. The P4k and P6k changed the game forever. The reality is most film makers don't care about stills or hybrid features. Not sure Panasonic can ever compete with that anymore. Again has squat to do with iPhones. The Gh5S should have been a big item for Panasonic. Then the P4k came out and it was all over after that. Its very hard to complete with a $1,300 camera that can shoot raw and does what its designed to do very well. Yes The GH cameras have more value as a hybrid but a massive amount of those buying a camera for video likely have zero interest in the other hybrid features.Some BMD users would like AF and some kind of stabilization but not enough to sacrifice everything else the Pocket cameras get right.

                          Film makers have tasted blood (raw) and they want more. Any DSLR now has to compete with that. Not just m43 but FF as well. If I didn't shoot stills as well I would have ditched DSLRs completely by now. That form factor itself may face a limited future. At least on the stills side there are enough stills pros out there to keep Nikon and Canon somewhat alive for awhile. Maybe not so much Nikon but they have a better chance thanks to photography to stay alive longer than Panasonic does.

                          Comment


                            I lived in Milwaukee 1979-1987 and even worked in electronic - sort of - retail there in 1986-87. And the chain even had a store in Appleton.

                            But the point about smartphones and the VHS-C/8mm talk is that it helps understand the markets better. Meaning that in this scenario, if someone asked back in 2015 about staying invested in the MFT ecosystem, the reply would likely be, "Of course, why not?". These days, new MFT equipment - whether from OMD or Panasonic - would probably be purchased to extend the life cycle of someone's already existing MFT glass collection. A brand new user would be a rare bird and that will force the GH-4/5 owners to start thinking about jumping ship as well. And if they do - and as we see from posts here, that is indeed the case - then the whole MFT ecosystem is facing extinction.

                            However, a word of warning - the same has been said about Nikon and then they responded with Z9, which seems to be the state-of-the-art (sorry, the cat's meow) product. And, while Z9 may not be the be-all-end-all camera, it seems to be a fantastic performer for a while to come.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
                              I also feel like it sort of undercuts their iphone marketing to sell a pro camera. like, "the iphone is as good as any professional camera on the market. there's no reason to buy a real camera instead...


                              ...BUT, if you want to give us $4K, we'll sell you an even better camera"

                              and can you imagine how expensive their cables, batteries, accessories would be?

                              but hey, I'm open to being proven wrong. I'm sure they'd make an interesting camera and that it would record prores internally. maybe they'd pull off what they did with the M1 and leverage the tech they designed for phones into a large-sensor beast
                              The iPhone 13 Pro can record in Prores.
                              What I like about the iPhone is I can put it in my pocket. Most if the time I don't want bigger camera. I gave up on my Nikons and gave them to my kids. I don't want to carry them around. I still have the GH3 and will consider a Gh6.

                              I used my iPhone 12 Pro Max for a short film and I used a $15 Rode cable to connect the Rode mic to the lighting port.
                              The Polar Pro kit with a case, grip and filters was $150. You really don't need a lot.
                              Any camera I've ever bought needs cables, batteries and accessories. I have bags full of that stuff!

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                                Most YouTubers use $500-$1000 Canons. Or even the $800-$1200 Sonys. With kit zooms or cheap primes.

                                So the total cost isn't as high as mentioned, but there's no denying that using a phone which you may already have (especially a new one since many people upgrade every year) is very tempting for those looking to start some video work, and that potential option will continue to hurt camera companies.
                                Not sure if you have used a GoPro but look what they put in that small camera, and for under $500. If Panasonic wanted to they could really make a great camera and not charge so much.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X