GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

Thomas Smet said:
I get it but how many are out there buying a used MP vs a new M1 Mac? Likely not very many or any at all. As cool as the MP tower is it only seemed to ever attract those in the know and not noobs. That tower largely sits dead at this point no matter how cool it looks. A few nerds buy them to gut them out for a PC build or the true nerds to house a Mac mini and eGPU but seriously the thing is dead.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about gawkers, not buyers

But i mean, the in-house editor at my auction house client works on a 2011 trash can. I don't think it even has H264 acceleration. He's the reason I had to buy cfexpress type-a cards to shoot all-intra (although the client ended up paying for the cards, so it's all good). Part of me wondered why they didn't just buy him a faster new computer for a fraction of the cost of the $10k trash can. Would have been similar in price to the cards. The answer is probably bias towards "desktop" and "pro". Of course, he's Gen X and although he's a great editor I don't think he's a total tech head
 
NorBro said:
I think the analogies and anecdotes about and between cameras/lenses and computers have to be separated because they just don't apply the same way, with the same people.

Computers and screens and similar devices are more a part of everyday life than photography, filmmaking lenses.
Click to expand...

Sure but ask a child which one is better, the big one or the small one. That's the bias I'm talking about. Which can be overcome with information
 
ahalpert said:
I'm talking about gawkers, not buyers

But i mean, the in-house editor at my auction house client works on a 2011 trash can. I don't think it even has H264 acceleration. He's the reason I had to buy cfexpress type-a cards to shoot all-intra (although the client ended up paying for the cards, so it's all good). Part of me wondered why they didn't just buy him a faster new computer for a fraction of the cost of the $10k trash can. Would have been similar in price to the cards. The answer is probably bias towards "desktop" and "pro". Of course, he's Gen X and although he's a great editor I don't think he's a total tech head
Click to expand...

I think that has more to do with the price they paid for that machine. Nobody wants to sunset a $5,000 - $10,000 computer they invested in and admit a $600 Mac mini is faster.
 
Thomas Smet said:
I think that has more to do with the price they paid for that machine. Nobody wants to sunset a $5,000 - $10,000 computer they invested in and admit a $600 Mac mini is faster.
Click to expand...

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
 
stoneinapond said:
Meanwhile Leica just announced a $9,000 M11 Rangefinder.....
Click to expand...

Lloyd chambers, landscape photographer and blogger, previews the M11. I don't subscribe to his in-depth articles, but i enjoy reading the free parts of his blog for the technical analysis. He's a super pixel peeper and knows more about various types of aberrations than I ever will

Still the useless-for-sharp-pictures space and needlessly expensive rangefinder design, which makes the camera unnecessarily complex, inaccurate, heavy and bulky and in need of adjustment any time a new lens is obtained (but that only takes 2-3 months of downtime and is a risky proposition with more than 2 lenses). Not that the rangefinder is adequately precise for even a 40MP sensor. Diehards with cognitive commitments love it though, and you can get the FrankenEVF for only another $740. Price no object? The FrankenEVF will trouble your stowage and degrade your usage of the camera forever vs a built-in EVF. And that’s a price no one can afford.
Click to expand...

https://diglloyd.com/blog/2022/20220...announced.html
 
DLD said:
I believe that CIPA numbers are official and confirmed via all sources, including the various manufacturer's income statements.

As to the smartphone onslaught, it's a continuous and undeterred advance. The smartphone makers don't care about the stand-along camera market. Their competition are other smartphone makers. And, as I had mentioned, that forces a continuous improvement on all fronts. Insofar as the camera modules go, the performances are catching up with the ILC's, while having an added advantage of always being in its owner's pocket/purse.

One could make this assumption - every year the mobile cameras make a $50 advance. Today, they're like a $500 camera; next year, like a $550; the year after, like a $600. And so on and so forth. New 200 MPX sensors from Samsung and Omnivision may not be as good as Sony A7RIV's 61 MPX one but, at a point blank/portrait range, the vast majority of shooters won't mind. And then ILC's get left over for the pros only. Like Slim Aarons and Barry Feinstein.
Click to expand...

Those graphs are only about cameras shipped. Not even sold or the profit for each. Its just a graph showing how many were produced and shipped. I think we need a lot more data to accurately judge the market.

I do not deny Smartphones have impacted the bottom feeder cameras. My point is none of us should even care. Those are cameras not a single one of us here would ever buy ever again. Smartphones or not those cameras sucked and it was only a matter of time before they were replaced by a better option. Fixed lens cameras are beyond outdated now for most consumers.

How many models are even out there anymore? Its hard to ship a ton of point and shoot cameras when they no longer manufacture 10001 models to choose from. I remember when Best Buy had a whole row of cameras that were all pretty much the same exact thing. Clones of each other with no value over each other. Just crap flooding shelves for consumers to pick up for a couple hundred bucks.

I only care about the higher end market for cameras. BMD makes that work and so can Panasonic and the rest.

I'm not sure I understand your benchmark of $50 better each year. How is it better? Where did this number come from? I also still don't think it matters to most of us. Sure we all have a Smartphone but none of us sold our other gear because of it. Smartphone cameras are interesting and yes the attempt to get better each time but they are just another tool. They are forever a fixed lens camera design with their own set of limitations. They solve some other issues but they still are not the same as a $500 DSLR. Maybe in terms of resolution but in the right hands someone can still likely do more with less complications with that $500 DSLR. Thats why I do not agree with that its now equal to a $500 camera. In some ways maybe but not in every way. Smartphones still cannot adjust aperture and likely never will. The darn things only adjust exposure with shutter speed which is the absolute worse thing to do for video. They can give it a 500MP sensor and that still will not fix that massive flaw. Plus who cares about MP? Smartphones are now stuck in that pointless race as the rest. Toss in more MP to trick consumers. A 200MP Smartphone sensor is absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that will beat the quality of a 20 MP R6. More pixels does not equal more detail or fidelity. That tiny glass will never resolve close to that detail and the NR applied will butcher whatever is left. Thats why I would like to see more done vs just tossing in more MP. 20MP is enough for serious photography pros that earn money.
 
ahalpert said:
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
Click to expand...

I feel like we are throwing in a lot of unrelated fields to try to compare and make a point. Yes the camera operator and size can represent value t some people. But thats because pros tend to have experience. Cameras are taken seriously because people know pros have cameras. I don't see that as a bias but an understanding of what tools are used by pros.

If a Dr. has a scalpel and your neighbor who just slammed a six pack has a utility knife which one do you want to operate on you? Is that a bias? No thats applying our understanding of a trained professional with the right tools for the job.

Of course your neighbor could be a surgeon and in a emergency could save someones life with a utility knife.

Some expensive wine does in fact taste better. Its not always in our heads. It costs a certain price because of the value of its taste. I'm always reminded of my favorite line from the movie Sideways. "I'm not drinking merlot". I use that line every time I get wine. Sad how many odd looks I get now. Its a great movie.

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.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Some expensive wine does in fact taste better. Its not always in our heads. It costs a certain price because of the value of its taste. I'm always reminded of my favorite line from the movie Sideways. "I'm not drinking merlot". I use that line every time I get wine. Sad how many odd looks I get now. Its a great movie.
Click to expand...

Sideways will always be a great movie. I bet Giamatti is still kicking ass in Billions, which I haven't seen. What an actor. Remember American Splendor?

Price labels influence our liking of wine: The same wine tastes better to participants when it is labeled with a higher price tag. Scientists have discovered that the decision-making and motivation center in the brain plays a pivotal role in such price biases to occur. The medial pre-frontal cortex and the ventral striatum are particularly involved in this.
Click to expand...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0814092949.htm

Individuals who are unaware of the price do not derive more enjoyment from more expensive wine. In a sample of more than 6,000 blind tastings, we find that the correlation between price and overall rating is small and negative, suggesting that individuals on average enjoy more expensive wines slightly less.
Click to expand...
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/37328?ln=en

I'm talking about unrelated fields to make basic points about different, but related, biases. Bigger = better, newer = better, more expensive = better. These are heuristics that people rely on to make judgements when they lack more information.

The dr example would be like the doctor just came from the gym without changing or showering and all he has is a utility knife. Your bartender neighbor is still dressed for a job interview and wields a scalpel. You can't hear what they're saying because of your tinnitus from the terrorist bomb explosion. Who do you choose to operate on you? Tick tock tick tock
 
2 final points on this tired tangent:

NorBro, the "1%" (Hollywood, streamers, TV broadcast) will continue to use REAL cameras, so even Generation Alpha (my kids) will have some awareness that there are more serious cameras out there besides the iPhone, just from seeing BTS photos or broadcast cameras on stage. And walking around with a camera that looks like that will still confer cachet, possibly even moreso due to its rarity

And re: bigger = better, the simplest example might be asking a n00b to tell you which looks faster, a 14" M1 Max or a 16" M1 Pro. Don't tell them what's inside, just tell them they're from the same year. Maybe they'll answer correctly due to an understanding of reverse psychology. But I think the initial impulse would be to assume that the larger MBP is faster
 
ahalpert said:
Sideways will always be a great movie. I bet Giamatti is still kicking ass in Billions, which I haven't seen. What an actor. Remember American Splendor?


https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0814092949.htm


https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/37328?ln=en

I'm talking about unrelated fields to make basic points about different, but related, biases. Bigger = better, newer = better, more expensive = better. These are heuristics that people rely on to make judgements when they lack more information.

The dr example would be like the doctor just came from the gym without changing or showering and all he has is a utility knife. Your bartender neighbor is still dressed for a job interview and wields a scalpel. You can't hear what they're saying because of your tinnitus from the terrorist bomb explosion. Who do you choose to operate on you? Tick tock tick tock
Click to expand...

Yeah certain things will always influence decisions. Sensor size being one of them. Most do think FF is better than m43 and in some ways they are right. In other ways maybe not so much but its that same impression that its bigger so it must be better.

This is something we have always dealt with however. I used to shoot only on large Sony ENG cameras. DSR300 and DSr500 to be exact. Before that it was JVC SVHS ENG cameras. I was concerned about the impression clients would have with a Canon XL1 and then eventually a small HDV video camera and eventually a DSLR. Not sure I ever really experienced any bias to be honest. My boss at the time didn't wan to think a GH1 could look better than a Sony Cinealta F900 but it did in some cases. Beyond that I'm not sure it ever had a major impact on anything else.

I'm not sure physical size means better when it comes to computers. Not sure anybody ever really got that impression. Faster CPUs are after all the same size. Faster ram is still the size of ram. Even faster and higher capacity floppy discs were typically the same size. In fact 3.5" was faster and held more than 5.25" did. Smaller always seems to get better in the computer world and I think a lot of people are used to that. Phones, flash drives vs floppy discs, CD's or hard drives. Even portable HDDs are now way faster than some earlier desktop HDDs. SSD is even starting to make way for smaller flash storage that is much faster. There are a boatload of crappy desktops out there as well. They are far from always faster or better. For many users moving to newer laptops is typically faster than the desktop they had previously so I think the perception that a desktop is always faster died a long time ago.
 
ahalpert said:
2 final points on this tired tangent:

NorBro, the "1%" (Hollywood, streamers, TV broadcast) will continue to use REAL cameras, so even Generation Alpha (my kids) will have some awareness that there are more serious cameras out there besides the iPhone, just from seeing BTS photos or broadcast cameras on stage. And walking around with a camera that looks like that will still confer cachet, possibly even moreso due to its rarity

And re: bigger = better, the simplest example might be asking a n00b to tell you which looks faster, a 14" M1 Max or a 16" M1 Pro. Don't tell them what's inside, just tell them they're from the same year. Maybe they'll answer correctly due to an understanding of reverse psychology. But I think the initial impulse would be to assume that the larger MBP is faster
Click to expand...

I can see that point between the 16" and 14" MBP. I bet many would assume a 16" Pro would be faster than a 14" Max. Assuming you never showed them the price. The 14" Max costs a lot more than the 16" Pro so I would hope a noob would question why.
 
People definitely assume my FS7 is better than my mirrorless cameras. But my mirrorless cameras are newer and have way better color, IMO, in addition to 4K120pl, better low-light, etc. (Yes, the FS7 has features they lack.)

And the hypothetical n00b doesn't KNOW it's a max or a pro or what the cost is. They're just making a snap judgement about the gear of 2 freelance editors who showed up with their own MBPs. And with the knowledge I have about possible configurations and higher potential speed from the 16" unit, I would make the same assumption without knowing what's inside
 
Thomas Smet said:
.

I'm not sure physical size means better when it comes to computers. .
Click to expand...

But the fastest computers of any given generation ARE larger. They need to accommodate more components, power, and cooling

I read that for the M1 Max mac pro, apple eill probably just stick numerous M1 Max chips in the same machine. The case may be the same size for various configurations of chip numbers. But if you told someone that one has 4 chips and one has 16, they could venture a guess which is faster. And they can't fit all that in a laptop.

if the perception is that all laptops and smaller computers are faster than desktops and larger computers, then I am wrong about bias in this case. But I think that people know that new towers are faster than new laptops. Gamers still use towers. Bitcoin miners use towers. Etc
 
ahalpert said:
2 final points on this tired tangent:

NorBro, the "1%" (Hollywood, streamers, TV broadcast) will continue to use REAL cameras, so even Generation Alpha (my kids) will have some awareness that there are more serious cameras out there besides the iPhone, just from seeing BTS photos or broadcast cameras on stage. And walking around with a camera that looks like that will still confer cachet, possibly even moreso due to its rarity

And re: bigger = better, the simplest example might be asking a n00b to tell you which looks faster, a 14" M1 Max or a 16" M1 Pro. Don't tell them what's inside, just tell them they're from the same year. Maybe they'll answer correctly due to an understanding of reverse psychology. But I think the initial impulse would be to assume that the larger MBP is faster
Click to expand...

For now. Our conversations always split and end on today vs. tomorrow.

I said in post #1633 if bigger cameras continue to get used, nothing will change; not much about the perception of cameras will change.

But I see more changes with how people think about computers.
 
In general, I envision a world in which humans are consumed with smart electronics every single second of their lives. They interact with all of their devices accordingly, day in and day out, practically unable to disconnect from anything.

Hobbies like image acquisition have been completely overtaken by mobile devices and pads/tablets and other objects that have cameras and sensors in them.

Drones and machines exist and also provide additional surveillance, whether you like it or not.

Traitional cameras may or may not exist but it doesn't matter because a lot of new stuff does.

Filmmaking has become even more advanced and the 1% has turned into the .01%.

"Hollywood" (the best-of-the-best anywhere on the planet) is so advanced that sometimes almost an entire movie is done with post-production.

Real or not real...no one can tell anymore.

Based on what people with more money, a lot more money, than ARRI do in the motion picture industry, there might not be an ARRI. If they are around, they will likely also have highly advanced cameras.

Cleaner, smaller systems that send and receive any and all data through more clever solutions.

There are no wires and boxes and other things hanging off the cameras. If someone is in the building and wants to see the final product, there will be screens sliding out of walls and ceilings.

Menus and settings will be changed within a hologram system, maybe even neurologically. (Calm down, NorBro.)

Dailies will be streamed realtime to kitchens across the other side of the world while an executive producer is making breakfast.

Advanced studios will exist - studios that can scan your retina from thousands of feet away - and normal people will understand these environments are for the elite. And even though the normal people may see big cameras here and other .01% futuristic devices, the thinking that "bigger is better" will not have the same meaning it does to people today because the smart electronics have resulted in smart humans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top