The new GH5 has finally been officially announced.
It’s obviously better than the GH4 that I have, but most of the new features are only beneficial to actual professional filmmakers. The GH4 is still crazy good for just about anyone, and I hope this makes the price go down. Having two or three of those would be way better than having a GH5.
It’s still a ton of money I don’t have to buy another GH4. Probably cost around $800 ish.
They updated the “best lens” which is the 12-35/2.8. It’s not clear if the newer version is actually better, or is just a different color.
They also have a new 12-60/2.8-4.0 which zooms a bit more, but it’s not entirely clear how much zoom you can get while still keeping it open at 2.8. If it goes down at or after 35, it could be just better and more versatile than the 12-35.
My Lumix G7 even goes hard, and if I could get another on the cheap or get a GH4 for under 800 to be the primary, id be into that.
For projects I’ve been using the time lapse to 4k feature a helluva lot, and its a great way to document the work. The problem being when I wanna transition to a quick take in real time means moving the camera between mounts. Yes, yes, second Lumix would be nice.
Yeah, that’s the most popular entry level DSLR, and that’s a really low price. However, I think Nikon is kind of winning the DSLR game right now, even at the entry level. Their brand new low-end DSLR will automatically send all its photos to your phone at all times. My camera has wifi that can do that, but it’s a manual and annoying/slow process. Imagine if every photo you took with your “real” camera just showed up on your phone soon after taking it? That’s hot shit.
Ok, look. I know that a LEICA is like a designer handbag. You are paying thousands upon thousands of dollars for mostly a brand name.
However. It is built by hand. it is a really terrific camera. It’s also the only full frame digital rangefinder camera. I mean, the only non-LEICA digital rangefinder I know of is the Fuji X-PRO, and that’s APS-C, not 35mm. Also, this obviously uses LEICA M lenses which are really terrific, and also ridiculously overpriced.
So no way I would buy one unless I won the lottery or something. I’m not stupid. But if anyone out there wants to buy me something, now you know where to look.
Why does anyone care that a Leica is made by hand? They look so cheap (yet aren’t), aren’t ergonomic. I don’t know why they are good. There are better camera choices available for aesthetics/ ‘lomography’.
Have you used one? They are extremely ergonomic. More importantly, reliable and durable. Cheap cameras fail all the time.
As far as Canon/Nikon go, one is not better than the other overall. They are only better in certain use cases. For example, Nikon D500 or Nikon D5 are the ultimate pro sports photography bodies. The competition from Canon, the 7D Mark II is still insanely good, the D500 is just slightly better at sports because of higher frame rate, slightly better autofocus, etc.
Same goes the other way around. Canon is way better when it comes to video than Nikon across all bodies, although they have more recently relinquished the video crown to the likes of SONY, Panasonic and others. Nikon’s video capabilities are way way way behind, though.
As for which one is more intuitive, it’s what you are used to. The user interfaces of Canon and Nikon DSLRs are direct descendants of film cameras going back to the '70s or even older. For example, you know how Nikons all have that red stripe near the grip? That’s because they are all based on the design of the Nikon F3 (one of the greatest SLR cameras of all time) which came out in 1980. Canon cameras say Av and Tv instead of A and S on the mode dials because that’s how Canon has always done it. My Canon A-1 from 1978 was the first to have those modes, and it’s written the same way.
Some people are used to one, and some people are used to the other.
And the same goes with lenses. They are just very subtly different in terms of the image they create. Which one is “better” is subjective.
It certainly used to be the case that Canon lenses were better, but nowdays, the performance differences are so small that it comes down to things like model, application, and even manufacturing variances in the individual lens.
Cameras, as with many things, there’s no objectively superior camera, at least, in the range we’re talking about, we’re not getting into hilariously expensive Hasselblads and Seitz gear. There’s only the cameras that are superior for particular applications, and cameras that suit individual photographers.