Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

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

  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by NorBro View Post
    What about the trash cans then? They need to be included in this conversation as well.

    They were barely bigger than a Mac Mini (just taller) and way more powerful before M1.
    I'd have to ask a n00b. My guess is the trash can still wins. But the reason I reached for the g5 was that it is larger and older/slower, so an even clearer example imo

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    Do we really still associate size with speed? Don't a lot of consumers view desktops like their crappy Dell computers at work and laptops as typically much better?
    Dunno. I've never worked in an office. The towers have higher power budgets and cooling capacity, so they have structural advantages. The company probably updates them as infrequently as possible. But the age of the machine is probably recognizable by the aestheric design. Just like with cars. Trends in arbitrary fashion/design choices date the machinery

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    What about the trash cans then? They need to be included in this conversation as well.

    They were barely bigger than a Mac Mini (actually not even as wide but just taller) and way more powerful before M1.

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by NorBro View Post
    Actually, I was thinking of a G3 - so yeah, probably.

    But I also think that if you ask people which they think is faster, a computer the size of a book or a computer the size of a mini fridge, they might think about why you're asking that question and then think about their answer.
    Yes but apple will put 4 m1 max chips in a mini fridge tower and it will run circles around the MBPs. If the internals are matched, then the size is indicative of greater power (and cooling power). So, the size = power bias holds water. You just need to know something about the internals

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Smet
    replied
    Originally posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    5a95d32caae60519008b45d8?width=1136&format=jpeg.jpg

    When I look at a chart like this all I really care about is the light blue part which are the higher end cameras. Look at how sad the sales were in 2003. This reflects my own experience when I went to the Academy of Art University in San Francisco. Very few people I went to school with had their own cameras. They were there to use the gear at the school. This was in 1997. Myself and one other film student had our own cameras. Mine was crappy and his was a Sony 3 chip DV camera that was the envy of all of us. The next year I bought a Canon XL1 and a lot of classmates used my camera so they didn't have to rent gear from the school.

    Some of the photography students had their own cameras that shot stills only.

    Clearly the dark blue section saw a spike and then a dip again. To me that matches with the industry at the time. 2009 is when the 7D and GH1 came out. Both of which completely changed how people could shoot video. Before that there was the 5D but it wasn't as affordable. The couple of years before that is when we finally started to see affordable Canon camcorders able to shoot 24p video. Before that it was the higher end HDV cameras capable of that and out of reach of budding film makers. 24p started the spark of indie film making and the 7D, GH1 and similar cameras exploded it. It was also around that time that people started actually finding a use for video cameras. Americas Funniest Home Video and eventually YouTube. Before that video cameras were something families occasionally used for vacations and sports. They never did much with the video after shooting it. Most people did not buy editing systems and learn hoe to edit video. They hooked the camera up to their TV and sometimes watched the video. Most had no way to share the video with others.

    Online video changed that and that helped the spike of bottom feeder cameras. Then yes Smartphones started to kill that market almost as fast as it started.

    Realistically however it just returned back to where it was before. I know that goes against the mantra of corporate greed but we really have to look at charts like this from multiple perspectives and not just the sky is falling. DSLR sales are much better than they were a few decades ago. The bottom feeder camera sales are down but those were the crappy $100 and $200 point and shoot cameras and little camcorders. I say good riddance to those cameras. They had zero use for us pros and without a doubt Smartphones have replaced the occasional use of those type of cameras. None of us will miss that market at all. Manufacturers should be happy to not have to produce such garbage to suck in a few dollars of profit per unit.

    Which brings up another point. This chart is about units shipped and not profit of each company. Selling a dozen or more bottom feeder cameras to make up the profit margin of a pro camera really skews what this chart really means.

    We also have to factor in another massive cultural shift that started around 2012. Cinema cameras that were affordable. A lot of those that jump started the massive DSLR film making era got a taste of cinematic and wanted more. When BMD came out wit their first cinema camera in 2012 the shift started slowly but kept picking up speed. Eventually RED, ARRI, BMD and other independent cinema camera companies took away a good portion of those that made the DSLR era a big hit. I know A lot of GH5 users that switched to a P4K and will likely never look back. For a lot of film makers cinema cameras is where they always wanted to be. The 24p camcorders and DSLRS were the stepping stones to get there. Cinema cameras are here to stay and we have forever lost a chunk of that market to those cameras. Has nothing to do with smartphones but those moving to better options.

    The thing with this chart is I don't think it factors in BMD and others. I don't think it includes RED or ARRI either. Thats a pretty good chunk of the market to ignore. Especially as more of us move to cinema cameras. They don't paint a full picture at all and can be interpreted in a very skewed way.

    I see five video markets going forward.

    1. Bottom feeders - that market is dead. Give up and move on. Smartphones won here and the rightly should. Being able to always have a camera in our pocket and instantly share on social media will mean 100000x more value than anything else.

    2. Video producers - The ones that were using the 3 chip 1/3" and 1/2" video cameras to produce real life video like seminars, sports, weddings, corporate video and so forth. They will always be around. Some moved to DSLRs and found a way to make them work. They will likely never move to cinema cameras.

    3. Broadcast - The big expensive cameras typically made by either Sony or Panasonic. The ones used for pro sports, TV studio productions and so forth. Should Sony be the only player in the game if Panasonic gives up? Will the BMD broadcast cameras finally take off in this market? We shall see. Thing about this market is it doesn't invest very often. TV stations would buy cameras and use them for many years. They were expensive but didn't sell every year.

    4. Film makers - Many have moved on to cinema cameras where they should be. The Traditional camera companies are going to have to do a lot more to compete with cinema cameras. Like a true raw cinema camera with accurate AF and IBIS would actually appeal to many over the BMD cameras. Panasonic is getting closer but still not 100% there. They try too hard to appeal to a hybrid market and perhaps that is flawed now. Forget external raw and record raw directly to a SSD like BMD does. Panasonic can learn from why the P4k killed the GH5S. Give film makers what they want and more.

    5. The Hybrids - People like me that shoot pro stills and pro video. Part of why hybrids also saw some success. Some photographers finally started dipping into video production and some video producers started dipping into photography. Camcorders, broadcast and cinema will never make sense here.

    I think the #2, #3, #5 and #5 are big enough for Panasonic to make affordable cameras that work for a lot of different users. #5 is a bit tricky because photographers do want more MP and sensitivity at the same time. M43 will never really be great at doing both together. But they can totally nail #2, $3 and #4 and still appeal to some #5's. Some nature photographers do actually prefer m43 for the extra reach and compact telephoto lenses. Thats where OM sees a lot of its success since very few buy it for video.
    I would also like to know how much these charts include lens shipments? In the past we bought new point and shoot cameras because we wanted a 6x zoom vs the 3x zoom we had to better reach a kids recital. When we shifted to DSLRs we stopped buying new bodies but we started buying new glass instead to overcome new challenges. Its another example of a shift and not so much a huge loss of revenue. Compared to 2003 I see people buying a ton of lenses today and I would say that market is much larger. Even used lenses are now kind of hard to find. When I first started buying Canon FD lenses people were practically giving them away. Now they go for high premiums and sold out in a lot of places. The shift from integrated to changeable lenses shifted a lot of the market. Canon may only sell a body for $2k to a user every five or more years but they are likely selling a lot more in glass to that user. Thats why I think just looking at camera sales today is a rather inaccurate and pointless view of data.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Smet
    replied
    Do we really still associate size with speed? Don't a lot of consumers view desktops like their crappy Dell computers at work and laptops as typically much better?

    There is the perspective of desktops being fast from video editor or gamer perspectives but then there is the 99% of other people impression which are the crappy computers at work from Dell or HP. In my experience if I walk into a company and they have a desktop sitting in a cubicle its probably a hunk of junk.

    Those that actually know the MP know it was a higher end expensive machine and are basing their assumption of speed on the price and target market more so than the size of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    Actually, I was thinking of a G3 - so yeah, probably.

    But I also think that if you ask people which they think is faster, a computer the size of a book or a computer the size of a mini fridge, they might think about why you're asking that question and then think about their answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    maxresdefault.jpg


    UAFE.jpg

    The 2019 Mac pro definitely LOOKS faster than the m1 Mac mini. And the g5 looks a lot like the 2019 Mac pro. The disk drives sort of give it away, but I'm talking about n00bs

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    I don't think so, but it doesn't really matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by NorBro View Post

    Old phones, computers, TVs, other monitors, gaming systems (although some are still bulky), but the design of many of these give them away, naturally.

    I’ve always seen the appeal in collecting things, so I think vinyl is very interesting, mostly for that purpose (not actually listening to it).
    I guarantee you that if you show a non-computer person a Power Mac G5 next to an M1 Mac Mini that they'll tell you the G5 looks faster. Of course, the G5 physical design hardly looks outdated. A testament to Apple design acumen

    Think of collecting actual photo prints (or even negatives) like collecting vinyl.. especially if the shots are of you. Extra object fetish points over a digital file or an ink print

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    Originally posted by ahalpert View Post

    the revival is specialty service. premium boutique thing, not for mass consumption/production. unless...

    7699.jpg

    I'm trying to think of other examples where a large and professional-looking piece of technology seemed out of date rather than impressive. I think that as long as the type of technology is still current (ie the camera doesn't look like it was designed in 1994 or that it runs on steam power or something), then I think the size factor still impresses
    Old phones, computers, TVs, other monitors, gaming systems (although some are still bulky), but the design of many of these give them away, naturally.

    I’ve always seen the appeal in collecting things, so I think vinyl is very interesting, mostly for that purpose (not actually listening to it).

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Smet
    replied
    Originally posted by ahalpert View Post

    the revival is specialty service. premium boutique thing, not for mass consumption/production. unless...

    7699.jpg

    I'm trying to think of other examples where a large and professional-looking piece of technology seemed out of date rather than impressive. I think that as long as the type of technology is still current (ie the camera doesn't look like it was designed in 1994 or that it runs on steam power or something), then I think the size factor still impresses
    As a DJ I still love vinyl but most of what I do now is purely digital. I do still have a bunch of vinyl records and turn tables in my dad's basement. I did start collecting vinyl records of my favorite band Franz Ferdinand. Seemed like a fun thing to do. Eventually I will get one of my turntables and put them to use someday.

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by NorBro View Post
    It's good on them for spending the energy and doing it (I don't foresee any revival happening but it's cool).
    the revival is specialty service. premium boutique thing, not for mass consumption/production. unless...

    7699.jpg

    I'm trying to think of other examples where a large and professional-looking piece of technology seemed out of date rather than impressive. I think that as long as the type of technology is still current (ie the camera doesn't look like it was designed in 1994 or that it runs on steam power or something), then I think the size factor still impresses

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Smet
    replied
    5a95d32caae60519008b45d8?width=1136&format=jpeg.jpg

    When I look at a chart like this all I really care about is the light blue part which are the higher end cameras. Look at how sad the sales were in 2003. This reflects my own experience when I went to the Academy of Art University in San Francisco. Very few people I went to school with had their own cameras. They were there to use the gear at the school. This was in 1997. Myself and one other film student had our own cameras. Mine was crappy and his was a Sony 3 chip DV camera that was the envy of all of us. The next year I bought a Canon XL1 and a lot of classmates used my camera so they didn't have to rent gear from the school.

    Some of the photography students had their own cameras that shot stills only.

    Clearly the dark blue section saw a spike and then a dip again. To me that matches with the industry at the time. 2009 is when the 7D and GH1 came out. Both of which completely changed how people could shoot video. Before that there was the 5D but it wasn't as affordable. The couple of years before that is when we finally started to see affordable Canon camcorders able to shoot 24p video. Before that it was the higher end HDV cameras capable of that and out of reach of budding film makers. 24p started the spark of indie film making and the 7D, GH1 and similar cameras exploded it. It was also around that time that people started actually finding a use for video cameras. Americas Funniest Home Video and eventually YouTube. Before that video cameras were something families occasionally used for vacations and sports. They never did much with the video after shooting it. Most people did not buy editing systems and learn hoe to edit video. They hooked the camera up to their TV and sometimes watched the video. Most had no way to share the video with others.

    Online video changed that and that helped the spike of bottom feeder cameras. Then yes Smartphones started to kill that market almost as fast as it started.

    Realistically however it just returned back to where it was before. I know that goes against the mantra of corporate greed but we really have to look at charts like this from multiple perspectives and not just the sky is falling. DSLR sales are much better than they were a few decades ago. The bottom feeder camera sales are down but those were the crappy $100 and $200 point and shoot cameras and little camcorders. I say good riddance to those cameras. They had zero use for us pros and without a doubt Smartphones have replaced the occasional use of those type of cameras. None of us will miss that market at all. Manufacturers should be happy to not have to produce such garbage to suck in a few dollars of profit per unit.

    Which brings up another point. This chart is about units shipped and not profit of each company. Selling a dozen or more bottom feeder cameras to make up the profit margin of a pro camera really skews what this chart really means.

    We also have to factor in another massive cultural shift that started around 2012. Cinema cameras that were affordable. A lot of those that jump started the massive DSLR film making era got a taste of cinematic and wanted more. When BMD came out wit their first cinema camera in 2012 the shift started slowly but kept picking up speed. Eventually RED, ARRI, BMD and other independent cinema camera companies took away a good portion of those that made the DSLR era a big hit. I know A lot of GH5 users that switched to a P4K and will likely never look back. For a lot of film makers cinema cameras is where they always wanted to be. The 24p camcorders and DSLRS were the stepping stones to get there. Cinema cameras are here to stay and we have forever lost a chunk of that market to those cameras. Has nothing to do with smartphones but those moving to better options.

    The thing with this chart is I don't think it factors in BMD and others. I don't think it includes RED or ARRI either. Thats a pretty good chunk of the market to ignore. Especially as more of us move to cinema cameras. They don't paint a full picture at all and can be interpreted in a very skewed way.

    I see five video markets going forward.

    1. Bottom feeders - that market is dead. Give up and move on. Smartphones won here and the rightly should. Being able to always have a camera in our pocket and instantly share on social media will mean 100000x more value than anything else.

    2. Video producers - The ones that were using the 3 chip 1/3" and 1/2" video cameras to produce real life video like seminars, sports, weddings, corporate video and so forth. They will always be around. Some moved to DSLRs and found a way to make them work. They will likely never move to cinema cameras.

    3. Broadcast - The big expensive cameras typically made by either Sony or Panasonic. The ones used for pro sports, TV studio productions and so forth. Should Sony be the only player in the game if Panasonic gives up? Will the BMD broadcast cameras finally take off in this market? We shall see. Thing about this market is it doesn't invest very often. TV stations would buy cameras and use them for many years. They were expensive but didn't sell every year.

    4. Film makers - Many have moved on to cinema cameras where they should be. The Traditional camera companies are going to have to do a lot more to compete with cinema cameras. Like a true raw cinema camera with accurate AF and IBIS would actually appeal to many over the BMD cameras. Panasonic is getting closer but still not 100% there. They try too hard to appeal to a hybrid market and perhaps that is flawed now. Forget external raw and record raw directly to a SSD like BMD does. Panasonic can learn from why the P4k killed the GH5S. Give film makers what they want and more.

    5. The Hybrids - People like me that shoot pro stills and pro video. Part of why hybrids also saw some success. Some photographers finally started dipping into video production and some video producers started dipping into photography. Camcorders, broadcast and cinema will never make sense here.

    I think the #2, #3, #5 and #5 are big enough for Panasonic to make affordable cameras that work for a lot of different users. #5 is a bit tricky because photographers do want more MP and sensitivity at the same time. M43 will never really be great at doing both together. But they can totally nail #2, $3 and #4 and still appeal to some #5's. Some nature photographers do actually prefer m43 for the extra reach and compact telephoto lenses. Thats where OM sees a lot of its success since very few buy it for video.
    Last edited by Thomas Smet; 01-13-2022, 09:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    Originally posted by stoneinapond View Post
    Meanwhile Leica just announced a $9,000 M11 Rangefinder.....
    Another company that is likely to survive. Leitz is there for its lenses. Electronics is a nice side business for the top pros and people with $100,000 (how many zeroes is that?) cars.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X