Davide DB

The debate has taken unexpected turns. Instead of continuing to mourn Olympus or betting on who will be next (Nikon?), comments on children and young generations reminded me of two essays by Italian authors: Massimo Mantellini and Paolo Magrassi. which perfectly center the side theme slightly touched by @oneyellowtang and @Interceptor121 "We live in the "good-enough society", the age of good enough: we don't need the optimal quality of the CD, MP3 is enough; phone calls with perfect audio? Skype VOIP is more than enough". The Internet has radically changed our approach with depth, information, social relations, markets and culture. We listen to music in new digital formats, we photograph the world through the small lens of our mobile phones. We no longer read newspapers, preferring random information that bounces off the social profiles of our "friends". But we embraced Ikea kitchens and Banksy's graffiti, new low-resolution artifacts that fill our lives today. Often through such options we can glimpse the signs of a new intelligence, other times they tell the story of our usual superficiality. In low-resolution technology real time overwhelms the archive. The Internet, the place of memory, is transformed into the space where everything will be quickly forgotten. Let's take music: while still discussing whether vinyl or CD is better, we switched to mp3 and then to streaming. It all happened quickly while we were discussing which are the best gold cables for our high fidelity systems dusty in the living room. Then I go into my son's room and his tech equipment is very simple: a laptop connected to the internet, Youtube and two $10 plastic speakers. If I ask him "how does it sound?" the answer is "great". It sounds great. We can do the exact same thing for photography. The current transformation is similar to the revolution introduced by Polaroid in the era of film. The digital image has changed skin and is now dominated by the speed of the transition to new media other than paper: social networks where our friends will be ready to welcome them and comment on them. The low resolution at least in our photos is not a simple process of degradation for practical purposes but a complex process that expands in several directions. A significant number of photos we see on the net are low-resolution but highly processed images. The software that modifies them before they are published is equipped with predefined filters and options that allow in a few gestures even on the screen of a mobile phone to make the image we have just taken more interesting, artistic or captivating. Such modifications are improvements and adulterations: They make the photos more similar to us and to the idea that we want to suggest us to others, but they intentionally betray the principle of truth. above all, they make the photos that we observe on the net all substantially similar. It's no coincidence that there are now groups of people on the internet who would like to eliminate the use of filters and who add the proud caption "nofilter" as proof of the authenticity of the look that technology has now compromised and deceived everywhere. Within the vastness of the digital offer, everything seemed at hand. Just then we decided to slow down, making an unexpected choice: the reduction of our expectations. Understanding this choice means understanding the contemporary. Low-resolution

It's not necessarily a bad thing I see your point but If it was for action cams or smartphones, WetPixel and uwpmag would have closed down by now. I agree with you. Nobody knows. Perhaps a big change like this will force manufacturers to move from their positions and progress will take unexpected paths.

John, from what you write, you are a pro. So why bothering discussing with us about this camera? Go ahead and give us a review of the kit. Bye

Nobody replied to my first post but I was right. This won't be the last sad news on camera industry.

Yes, but I wouldn't do it on regular basis. You can find instructions to do so on the user manual. Bye

Despite of all marketing campaign, camera market is in full and steady decline since several years. Profit margins are razor thin and the Corona dealt the final blow to an already compromise situation. New advanced features require new LSI development with huge investment and right now few company have the expertise and money: Sony and Samsung. Sony have still great margin developing sensor for most of the brands out there. Even Canon has serious issue developing in house technology. Low margin is the main reason we saw the FF race of the last two years. FF camera are perceived as pro gear with more margins. Unfortunately IMHO they just delayed the sad end. Yes I'm pessimistic. Looking at camera sales figure is clear that manufacturers fail to persuade people the they need a new camera every year. As consumer I'm happy that the race to new models every year is stopping. Just to put some figure on the table: Year to Date Sales compared to Jan-April 2019: DSLR Units : 754K, -47% YTD DSLR Shipped Value: ¥32.3 billion -45% Mirrorless Units: 720K , -36% Mirrorless Shipped Value: ¥50.4 billion -40% Compact Units: 1.16m -47% Compact Shipped Value: ¥22.9 billion -44% Lenses for smaller than 35mm Units: 1.68 million, -41% Lenses for smaller than 35mm Shipped Value: ¥23.9 billion, -40% Lenses for 35mm and larger Units: 978K, -40% Lenses for 35mm and larger Shipped Value: ¥48 billion, -39% I hope it will never happen but: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/22998/olympus-closure-is-near-can-happen-in-less-than-8-months/p3 Canon results: The last two pages of this thread are very informative of the situation: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/23470/industry-rumors-coronavirus-can-be-final-blow-for-camera-industry/p9 These are rumours: Olympus leads sales fall in EU and US, it reached 97% in some areas Pentax is close, in one area that had 98% fall, overall is is around 90% Panasonic comes third, L mount FF bodies sales drop is staggering, some areas >85% Nikon is next with 60-70% fall Canon and Sony are best, in some areas they are even above 60% drop slightly.

Hi, Any quick source in Europe for a HDMI internal cable for GH5? (not Nauticam) 90° full hdmi male to straight micro hdmi male It seems that Amazon and Ebay have all sort of connectors combination except what I'm looking for... Thanks in advance

Wow, very interesting indeed.Nice work P.S Another twilight zone lover, I see

Massimo, I'm speaking about a NLE you don't know and you reply me about sensors and processor and rolling shutter. I have countless DVD made from HD and 4K content and since Edius introduced Lanczros 3 scaling algorithm, results are quite different. Moreover I don't see why I should not believe a document from Grass Valley, a company completely dedicated to professional equipment. I'm done too

Why don't you just say I didn't know it! it's much simpler. Isn't it?

Nope. On Edius it works on video downsampling: https://www.ediusworld.com/old_pdfs/en/support/faq/EDIUS_ResamplingMethod.pdf https://www.videoproductions.com.au/html/edius-downscale.html

John, no offense at all, but it's clear from what you write that you have little or no experience of underwater filming. As @Interceptor121 and @Lionfi2sare trying to tell you, it's not all gold that glitters. The data on the paper doesn't necessarily reflect real advantages in the field. Besides, I stopped giving too much importance to VIP reviews on the web years ago. Many people have a strong incentive to push one product over another. Read: biased opinions. Full frame is by no means the best format to shoot underwater. Even a RED (except the MONSTRO 8K) has a smaller sensor than the FF. On this forum you can find hundreds of posts explaining the pros and cons of having an FF camera. And no, photography is not video. In addition, all these hypothetical advantages will be put to the test by the operator's skills (read my signature). Since you're talking about costs (and selling a kidney), things are pretty simple: we all know that selling used equipment means losing a lot of money anyway so: #1 you're a professional. So you can spend a lot of money on the right tool for the job you just took. Surely with the revenue from your work you can easily make up the initial investment in a short/medium period of time. #2 you are an amateur like many of us here (me first). Then it's important to stay mainstream. Because when you'll sell your used equipment, just having something very common/appealing can make up part of the investment. I have a nice collection of camera housing on the shelf. It's clear that this camera is very niche. Only one manufacturer of niche underwater enclosures has claimed to make one. Do you think when you decide to sell it, it'll be easy? That's why they pointed out to you that there is the Panasonic S1/S1H that has the same sensor and an electronics that has a history behind it. And yet, I'm convinced that it would be very difficult to sell a used SH1 housing. Of course if you are a billionaire who has fallen in love with this camera, then the two options mentioned above do not apply. Bye It's not true. My Edius have Lanczos 3 downsampling method among the other and difference is quite noticeable

A GH5

Good video. Perfect time to sit on the couch and see or favorite documentaries. As I wrote on an old thread, I find US and EU storytelling completely different. Anyway I agree on your chart except you missed the Laurent Ballesta work. i.e.

Who makes these floating spherical balls? I think you already saw the BTM tutorial video