GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?
- Thread starter filmguy123
- Start date
Zim
Veteran
you don't need them
Zim
Veteran
yes on a DSLR, but a phone doesn't and it has a real camera.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
correct, although this tangent got started with a discussion of what an Apple-made CAMERA camera would be like. I'm sure it would have more than one button. I'm just a little apprehensive of how their neurotic design philosophy would interact with the operational requirements of an actual camera
For sure ,yes on the last point, yes on the first point as well- in comparison to a phone. But either is still far more painful than a camcorder configuration IMO. I'm apparently quite the (dwindling) minority.
NorBro
Major Contributor
I think many would agree with you but they are a part of the older generation, especially the ones who grew up in the business using shoulder cameras.
Camcorders can be fast like with with aperture or zooming, but still can't dial in WB as quickly or shutter speed, IMO. (Although preset WBs with switches is fast, and you could do the same with mirrorless' and programmed buttons, I like a dial that can variably control it, or a ring like on a RF lens.)
And most camcorders don't have quick controls to operate/engage certain functions like eye-AF (or which eye), or IBIS, or S35mm crops from full-frame sensors, or S&Q - but to be fair most camcorders don't get those features.
The new camcorders probably are better, but they still aren't as blazing fast as mirrorless' for those born into those cameras. And the IQ is still pretty poor, IMO.
Camcorders can be fast like with with aperture or zooming, but still can't dial in WB as quickly or shutter speed, IMO. (Although preset WBs with switches is fast, and you could do the same with mirrorless' and programmed buttons, I like a dial that can variably control it, or a ring like on a RF lens.)
And most camcorders don't have quick controls to operate/engage certain functions like eye-AF (or which eye), or IBIS, or S35mm crops from full-frame sensors, or S&Q - but to be fair most camcorders don't get those features.
The new camcorders probably are better, but they still aren't as blazing fast as mirrorless' for those born into those cameras. And the IQ is still pretty poor, IMO.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Right, and James once put up a dissection of various proper video cameras showing how the primary exposure controls and other functions were all located around the hand positions
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I broadly agree with you
I don't know about FAR more painful. The things the mirrorless can control on body are just as fast or faster. When you have to menu dig, it's painful.
Part of it is real estate--theres more space on a camcorder for audio controls, etc. Part of it is rhat mirrorless are designed first for photo. It is what it is
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Well the lenses will generally cost more because they
have to cover a full frame or APSC sensor and not the relatively small m4/3 sensor. But you are severely overstating
things. Plenty of the lenses cost much less than ‘twice
the cost of a GH5.’ And the GH5M2 can’t do everything
those cameras can too as it doesn’t have anywhere near the
low light ability, these do. Can it shoot 4K 120 at 10 bit 4.2.2? Can it shoot full frame? Can it’s autofocus live up to the Sony
and Canon standard? No? Well then no wonder it’s half
the cost. It’s older technology. And price only comes into
the equation for those that can’t afford the more expensive
one…. Like with most things. Why would anyone ever
buy a Sacher tripod? I mean, you could buy 3 Benro’s
for the same price…..
I think you missed my point completely., You were being very specific about 10bit, etc and quoting a set of cameras. My response was specific to the points you made not to the other attributes of those cameras. Clearly something that costs almost 4 times as much had better excel at something ! It obviously depends on what you want the camera to do. If it does things you do not need or use it is clearly not the camera for you. Especially if it cost 3 times as much. For me the Nikon Z9 is the perfect example. I would like 8K ( it will do that next year sometime ! ) It has a whole lot of stills features I will never use. From a technology point of view I can appreciate what a lovely piece of equipment but I have no intention of even considering it for my use. I have no need for shallow depth of field so actually a full frame camera could be more work for me making sure I have good depth of field. Shutting down the iris to get that depth of field will of course also change the low light capabilities. Faster lens on MFT is a better solution for me. Same comment on tripods. If the application is fixed with no movement then maybe the Benro's are the best choice. They will be lighter to carry around !!
ILC sales in units went from about 20 million in 2012 to about 5 million in 2021. From the general coverage, it appears that the low end/sub-$1,000 MFT and APS-C models have almost disappeared. Sony even paused the production of A6100 and A6400 at the moment. The cartel is pretty much committed to the $1,000-$2,500 range as their bread&butter.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
The reason I was being specific about 10 bit
etc and quoting a set of cameras is because
you had made a claim that there wasn’t a camera
that had great autofocus and could still do what the
GH5 could with its 10 bit codecs etc. So I thought
‘maybe he’s unaware of these cameras, they just
came out in the last year after all and not everyone
keeps up on every new camera release.’
But maybe it seems maybe that wasn’t the case
after all. I do wonder about the comment that
‘closing down the iris to get the deep depth of
field will of course change the low light capabilities.
Faster lens on MFT is a better solution for me.’
Wouldn’t that then give you the shallow
depth of field you are trying to avoid? Seems to
me that the larger sensors can do the same things
MFT can but you have the option to open up and do
other things that MFT cant. The FX9 will even allow
you to crop in on its FF chip to a pretty small
portion if you want to use certain lenses on
it, gain more reach or whatever. Obviously that
camera is in another league but it just illustrates
the point that bigger sensors have the flexibility to do what
a smaller sensor can do, plus much more. Maybe
you personally don’t care about the extra features,
but the industry as a whole does…which is why
larger sensors are ‘the new rage’ and MFT is
slowly fading away.
These are the exact numbers from CIPA (should I bother with arithmetic, 'cos I am just eyeballing the totals) for the first 10 months of 2021 but one could project the last two months just by averaging the percentages). DSC (i.e., P&S) are first, then ILC's. It looks to be around 5.5 million for 2021. Now, granted, the chart is up and down because of the post Covid recovery but the ILC's look to be about 50% off 2019.
https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/dw-202110_e.pdf
https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d_2012_e.pdf
The last line is for 2012, 98M total, 78 DCS + 20 ILC.
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Looks like 20 million ILCs in 2012 down to 8.5ish in 2019. About a 60% collapse. P&S camera shipments declined from 79 million to 6.7 million in the same time period, a 91% decline.
Camera companies are currently shipping nearly twice as many ILCs as P&S's. No wonder they love the pros so much suddenly!
I'm not willing to include 2020 and 2021 numbers in a trend analysis because there could be a rebound after the pandemic. If there is an after.
Camera companies are currently shipping nearly twice as many ILCs as P&S's. No wonder they love the pros so much suddenly!
I'm not willing to include 2020 and 2021 numbers in a trend analysis because there could be a rebound after the pandemic. If there is an after.
Last edited: