GH5ii, GH6, GH7, G9ii?
Perhaps
>>4382756Sony a6700 if you want to have beautiful colours
>>4382756even a $200 canon 5d will outperform any of these
>>4382756GH7 because it has the biggest number
>>4382769But its expensive though
>>4382756none, go full frame
GH8
>>4382771I cannot actually, in good conscience, recommend any MFT setup that costs more than maybe $500. The entire reason for the system to exist is basically replaced by modern mirrorless APS-C. There are outliying reasons, but (You) are likely not one of them.(You) should buy the Canon 5DIII or IV and a. save yourself a bunch of moneyb. give yourself far better results than MFT could ever hope for
There is a gear thread, you nunce.
If you are going to use native lenses, go for one with working AF. If not, the original gh5.
>>4382806So vintage -> gh5
>>4382762Lol not in dynamic range or video
>>4382756Probably just a cell phone, bro.
>>4382756>spending real camera money on an inferior format and dead system>ff sized bodies, phone sized sensors, subfuji autofocus and awful build qualityWhy?Canon r7 or sony a6700, preferably canon r7You actually NEED video specs = go shop blackmagicdesign not hybrid vlogslop. Mft is not even a good mount. Most “ok” lenses cost as much as better lenses on ff so you will adapt ef and get worse everything. only excuse is being a literal bitch and having such weak arms you think f8-11 zooms are excusable. I can not in good conscience recommend an mft setup over $1k (body, several lenses, and flash) unless you have a medical condition (ie: only having one arm) and will kill yourself if you cant take shitty photos of birds and bugs anymore. Maybe if your medical condition is aspergers syndrome. I notice a lot of the happier mft shills on youtube are really dysgenic looking and hyperfocus on things that dont matter irl but fulfill completionist and ocd like desires, ie: 4k60/120 crop factors (usually a quality niggle but its already cropped 2x so its just aspergers) when they dont shoot professionally anyways. Honestly the 4k looks like 1080p so whats the point? The rest are recently divorced and miserable looking.
>>4382834video spergs like that are the same as ff fags that think they need 61+ megapixelsok 24 and 45 i can see, 8k screens soon, but how deep are these idiots cropping, and mft video is worse because the 4k actually does look like 1080p
>>4382834Jesus christ, YOU need to KILL YOURSELF
>>4382842Truth hurt? Micro four thirds is legit pointless if you’re going to spend that much and aren’t physically disabled or cripplingly “neurodivergent”
>>4382843You're crippling abomination sharted out of your whoring mother's womb. If trump didn't delegalise abortions, she would cut a parasite like you aeons ago and forget that something so insufferable and disgusting ever existed. Take a shot and remove yourself from this earth and make the place for much more useful people than YOU.
>>4382824I'd say so, if buying second hand is fine, there is nothing that motivates paying much more for one of the newer cams. I had my gh5 out the the other day to test a c-mount lens I picked up, and it's still a beast. Can't be beat for what they are going for now.
>>4382844This is how the panjeetsonic shill brigade reacts to reality. You indian guys sure dont know how to write an insult. You always end up sounding like a bollywood villain.
>>4382756None.The canon R7 is really good. Far better than anything on micro four thirds unless you're a huge macro autist. The a6700 has more dynamic range and less features if you want a compact. If you don't give a fuck about the size of telephoto and macro lenses (as an alternative to going m43 and not giving a fuck about ugly ass nervous bokeh and diffraction blur), put in a few extra shifts at your mcjob and buy an R6II (pro camera, great video) or 1st gen A7C (good enough for you if you're not getting paid).These panashit things are just meme camcorders for autistic people that focus on spec sheets and get too wrapped up in codecs to realize everything coming out of the camera just looks bad, period.
>>4382756A6700. I have an A6500, G9, and G9ii. Sony colors are better and that's coming from the crappier older Sony color rendition. A6500 has a lot of annoying things like cropping in higher than 24fps and noticeable rolling shutter which the A6700 fixes. If you really need the better stabilization, get a gimbal. I hate gimbals so it's the G9ii for me most of the time but get the GH7 if you are doing a lot of video and really want MFT Panasonic. GH5ii, GH6 have garbage AF like the G9. Avoid. FF is also worth a look at these price ranges. If I were starting over, I'd go either R6ii or ZV-E1 and focus on stationary footage which is more pleasant anyway than walking shots.
>snoy colors are goo-
>>4382756S1/5 original
>>4382844>SAAR
>>4383128Did she fuck up the white balance on purpose? In capture one the 2020+snoys with the prostandard profile look exactly like nikon and the s5. The s9 is so shit it’s sent panashills reeling with olympus levels of shill desperation. For once, a camera that is OBJECTIVELY unusable for most photography. No shutter or hot shoe lmfao.
>>4383169and its bigger than the a7c. lol. another awful product from a literal washing machine company. why would they know how to design a camera, rather than an appliance designed to screw people out of their money?
>>4382756dont buy a panasonic op. https://watermanatwork.com/blog/panasonic-lumix-cameras-fail/even a canon r50 is better but definitely yeah get an r7. canon is awesome.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height720Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4383172Sony should sue Panasonic, clearly stolen tech
>>4383177Even an old snoy is not as unreliable as a penisonic. Not even fuji is that bad. But they’re close.
>>4383172>article from 2017As if nothing would change in 7 years. Seethe more.
>>4383189>no it’s oldsnoy levels of cope. panasonics quality has never improved. >be s5ii>drain battery when off>be g9ii…https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4742890https://www.reddit.com/r/Lumix/comments/1g1zuk8/has_anyone_else_noticed_this_audio_issue_with_the/?rdt=49703https://www.reddit.com/r/Lumix/comments/1cx1wkp/g9_ii_fried_my_memory_cards_help_needed/Avoid penisonic. Buy a canon.
>>4383195Stop cherry picking shill, OP is clearly looking for a video cam and G9ii is not the one they should get. GH5s is the one they should get if it's mft, and FF it's any of the newer bodies. I've never had issues with any lumix (or any canon for that behalf).
>>4383262GH5s has no IBIS and shitty DFD unlike G9ii and GH7.
>>4383262>gh5sStill breaks because its a penisonic. Also lol 4k looks like 1080p. No autofocus. No good lenses without a janky adapter or a snoy gm budget. Just the corner wobbling meme stabilizer. Get a real video camera like a canon r8/r7
GH5S has no IBIS because it was intended to be rigged, and they found that the GH5 still had wobble even when the IBIS was disabled.
>>4383384>rigging a micro four turds camerais this the ultimate "I'm a film maker" larp?
>>4383405No, currently that's shooting on 8mm film.
>>4383406Shooting on 8mm film is actual film making. Anything shot on digital is taking video and all the cope in the world can't change that.
>>4383350That's intentional>>4383367>b-b-but panasonic is hecking bad quality>only argument is to call it "penisonic" as if that's somehow a bad thing>calls canon r7/r8 "real" video cameraslol. lmao even. are they paying you to do this?
>>4383445How soon until I can buy an Arri for vacation vids?
>>4383457>panasonic is bad qualityCorrect. >old! The s5ii and g9ii aren’t old. Panasonic has a consistent problem with quality in cameras. Why would they spend extra on qc for a dying division? They’re not even selling cameras with shutters or hot shoes anymore lmao. You are being scammed. >cherry picked!The same shit is damning to sony with the same number of problems spread across 4x more cameras and most of theirs are “old” (2017) too. They get shit solely because canon and nikon cameras dont break period and havent since early DSLRs. The only problem is nikon cant make autofocus work, so buy a canon. The only real option in mirrorless. Ah, and yes, sony is meant to be a professional brand and penisonic isnt. Higher standards. Panasonic is subsnoy and has a green tint. https://www.reddit.com/r/Lumix/comments/1c1k8b2/very_disappointed_with_s5iix_color_science_and_iq/Buy canon for a problem free experience.
>>4383527How much are they paying you for this? Just so you know, there is no "green tint" on Lumix cameras. It's a magenta tint. The reddit thread was made by a retard, and you are retarded for not reading the comments.
>>4383559>umm the color science is bad in a different way mmmmmay?You sound like a snoy. “Noooo you didnt set your white balance right its not green its actually a piss filter and needs to be 4800k in daylight!”Canon color science has no tint fyi.
>>4383564Bad? Who said anything about bad.
>>4383497You buy an old 8mm camera which is what people used for vacations before junk video came onto the scene.>>4383457GH5s is intentionally shit, we know.
Fuji >>>> panasonic
Wait, the MFT haters is all one guy? huh
>>4382761>snoy>colorslmao
>>4383651yeah
>>4382756for unlimited video recording GH7, if you don't need unlimited video recording the G9II.fantastic camera
>>4383695Sony has the best color science>inb4 the fat girl with fudged white balance
>>4383718Unironically truea7iv and a7c colors are lovely
>>4382834this post unironically made me get the lumix s5iix instead of the gh7
>>4383739shoulda got a canon
>>4383739shoulda got a sony zve1
>>4384241>>4383527Daily reminder[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerJordanImage-Specific Properties:
>>4384252right: filmic sovlleft: sovlless
>>4384255nothing filmic in either of them
>>4382828Micro four thirds has no dynamic range. Just noise.
>>4384256can't help but notice you don't deny the sovl
>>4384260digital is by definition soulless
>>4384252Its just no sun+different white balanceAre panasonic shills this desperate
Guess the AA filter direction (or if it doesn't exist)If your camera has an AA filter you are being scammed. Moire reduction in post works great, looks better, and is quick and easy to do.>inb4 EDITING!?Shooting jpeg is for consumer/hobby cameras, not professional equipment. People shoot jpeg on fujifilm, not professional canon/sony bodies. They only put AA filters on because it makes the camera worse than the next more expensive model. You still get moire too because the AA filter only blurs in one direction, and almost no moire generating patterns do! You have to edit anyways!They just want you to buy the 40+ megapixel cameras that are "more professional". if you didn't have an AA filter, you would be too happy with how sharp and professional your photos looked.>BUT MY CANON SONY NIKON HAS BETTER AUTOFOCUS AND SHARPER/SMALLER LENSESSo? Your photos are blurry at the sensor level.If you are a professional and need to deliver the sharpest photos, only a panasonic will actually do it with 24 megapixels.
>>4384711It doesnt matter because no one pixel peeps distant photos of ultra fine pencil art.In prints noticeably blurred photos can be sharp. Go learn a lost photographers art: circle of confusion, print size, and viewing distance. Dpreview test pages are like printing 24mp 7 feet wide. When was the last time you did that? As always panasonic fans focus on the least relevant shit.
>>4384713Cope harder, quality is quality
>>4384714>quality is quality>1px level detail is better in one direction>have to pixel peep to see>huge moire patterns visible even in a tiny crop>dont have to pixel peep to seeIf you gave a fuck you’d stop being poor and buy a camera with more megapixels. Professionals literally ask companies to keep the AA filters on because no one who prints big enough to see the sharpness would settle for 24mp bayer. I can not tell real world z6ii and s5ii photos apart besides panasonic having duller colors overall and less accurate reds.
my piggies, is the G9 MK1 actually still a good buy? for stills mostly, don't care about le video
>>4384805It could, but that depends on the price.
>>4384805The G9 fails at fast action due to unreliable AFC, which is a shame because it has so many other features relating to fast action. Other than that specific use I fully recommend it, especially for $500 as it's going for nowadays.
>>4382756S1 or S5 if you don't need AF, S5ii or S5iix if you do.
>>4384805No. Buy a used FF DSLR or APSC mirrorless.
>>4382756>S5why are you not considering an s5 or s5ii? b&h had a crazy deal on the s5ii x with a 50mm a few months back. maybe the still do. like $1500. and the 50mm is a great lens.
>>4385179>sir, panasonic is good sir. buy new on sale at b&h now my sirs. l mount to the moon brahma willing!This post is an ad
>>4385186OP asked about 4 PANASONIC cameras>gets recommended another Panasonic camera not listed>It's a conspiracy!
>>4385186You are probably right. Sony, Nikon,Canon, and Fuji users almost always recommend buying used cameras because the savings amount to a lens or more, except for the one actual paid canon shill who pops up to direct us to canon’s refurb page and insist that the r50 is a good camera (lol just get a ff dslr). Meanwhile 9/10 panasonic recommendations on /p/ that are not a dated decade old point and shoot are instructions to buy a new camera bundled with a new lens off amazon or something. And this board has maybe 2 panasonic users (too much, given the ass autofocus and unreliability, but they’re probably from /vid/)
>>4385187No, OP asked about video oriented micro four thirds cameras, rajesh. Go shill S5 ON SALE NOW somewhere else. We like cameras that don’t eat their batteries while off here. Also working autofocus and lens ecosystems that dont suck.
>>4385187And all of them are micro four thirds, not the ff garbage>l mount so worthless its sole purpose is adapting canon lenses>s5ii drains battery while off>404: autofocus not foundThe mft cameras at least have some advantage (cheaper with slightly smaller lenses). Panasonic FF cameras are just worse nikons.
>>4385190>>4385196hoes madS5ii is a great camera, even better with DJI's Lidar AF system
>>4385206>buying external autofocus because your camera's autofocus isn't goodand the battery drain doesn't matter, because you converted it to V mount batteries, right? no need to worry about shutter failures either because shutters dont wear out shooting video :^)but OP was asking about micro four thirds, not about spending thousands rigging out a worse nikon z6ii with a desolate lens mount
>>4385210Thanks for confirming you don't understand the purpose Lidar AF
>>4385213>panasois need lidar on manual focus lenses because native l mount suckslol no wonder everyone is buying the zv1manual “cine” lenses are not special, most of them are sterile and modern actually
>>4382756i assume theres other anons here that actually work on videography, but i do aswellyou should go gh7 or g9iii think panasonic is the best when it comes to average-work videographerhas ibis, decent autofocus on newer camera models, good batterylife, leica glass (or any other if ur ok with manual focus) shoots really good internal codecs and formats, possible to upgrade to external recorders whenever u want instead of having to buy a new camera can be found as low as 900 in the used marketif you do more profesional or higher level work look onto blackmagic
>>4384805if its solely for stills, unironically a canon 5d mk2 with old canon lensesi dont know why anybody would go mft panasonic for photography when 5dmk2 can be found for like 250 dollars
>>4383599gh5s is intended to be used the way a blackmagic should be, you know, with a crew of people doing different things
>>4386212>dslr>mirror SLAP>oh I overexposedyeah no thanks, go back to your containment thread, luddite
>>4386221why would you call me namesit has good ergonomics, takes very good pictures in raw format, many really good lens options, pictures probably as good as any ff photography camera released in recent years for dirt cheapi dont know what the problem is
>>4386221>Calls other guy luddite>Shills for objectively worse technologyNot the win you were expecting homie. DSLRs were great for decades and the existence of inferior mirrorless tech doesn't make them somehow worse at making good photos
>>4384805As long as you aren't shooting BIF you're fine, even then it's possible just not the right tool for the job. Whether or not it's a good buy depends on your requirements. M43 is a compromise in a lot of ways.
