I'm a pro photog. Rarely does anyone even mention modern cameras these days, so it's always fun to see someone notice something that takes so much space in my life.
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Depends on what your standard for good lies; for many people in the photo/video space the bar for a decent camera unfortunately starts closer to at least $500, with something like the Canon R50 being a good middle ground between a very good first camera and something that can last you for a few years if you end up pursuing photography/videography seriously. If you have no idea what RAW is and you just want something that can take more than iPhone pictures, you could look into older DSLRs from Canon or Nikon, though in my opinion their image quality will on the surface look worse than the post-processing done with most smartphone cameras. I'd also stay away from point-and-shoot cameras (or digicams as some people call them now) unless you really like the retro, flash photography look. Zooming is by far the smartphone camera's worst enemy, so if you can get a second hand bridge camera (the photo equivalent of a camcorder - one very zoomy lens) it just might be more bang for your buck. I can't guarantee you many pixels but I can guarantee you a big ass zoom. My girlfriend got a second hand Canon PowerShot SX70 HS for less than $150 and she was in love with the 30x zoom on that thing.
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc There's a lot of good used stuff - the tech hasn't progressed THAT much over the last 10 years so the stuff from 10 years ago is still pretty good. Nothing for £100-200 new is going to be worth it imo
Really appreciate you filming the "mundane". Far too often I'll look for a review of a camera and yeah, it can take amazing footage at a California beach, or in the mountains of some exotic place... But the grey skies of the UK with its graffiti scrawled bridges and littered bushes? That's where I'll be using it so it's nice to see some footage of how a camera performs in the UK! I often think a Californian sunset will make any camera look good - that’s probably why so many reviewers show it!
as a camera enthusiast myself it's lowkey funny to see the man who talks about weird intricacies of Counter Strike talk about cameras with great insight
I have to say that I'm really excited to see what you shoot with this new camera. You do such a phenomenal job recording beautiful footage from your tourism and interesting mundane everyday things. And your talent really shows when it comes to polishing them up in editing software in just the subtle and right ways for the videos to really pop and speak for itself. I really hope we get to see a lot of footage from the GH7 in the future.
wow im totally flabergasted by the footage of canal and the vibrancy of the colours, I never knew a youtube video could look so good you really opend my eyes👍👍
I upgraded from the G7 to the G9ii when it came out and I couldn't be happier, it's like a cheaper mini-GH7 in it's own right. In a world of Sony A7Siii content creators, You and Adam Neely are my two favourite non-camera based RU-vidrs using Lumix M43 cameras and I can't tell you how happy I am to see it.
just to note, when you use a wide angle + in body stabilisation, it tends to create a jelly warping effect on the edges (0:48 and 1:01 for example) of the frame. It can be quite sickening and was the first thing i noticed. A friend who doesn't care for cameras was also offput by it and didnt understand why. I had to make this decision a while ago and i decided to take the micro-jitters over the warping, but anyway just thought i'd let you know c:
Parting with a lot of money is a real problem tho. I bought GH6 last year, then soon enough Pana came out with G9 mark 2, their first m4/3 camera with the new phase detect autofocus. This year they followed up with GH7 and it's a difficult decision to sell the GH6 or keep it. Basically, GH6 and GH7 are extremely identical apart from the autofocus, and it doesn't help GH6 became devalued so fast, there's not even a trade-in option.
Same for me. I bought the GH6 after skipping all the other variants like the GH5 mk2 since I bought my GH5 at launch in 2017. The GH5 received a lot of updates over the years including better autofocus (not comparable to the GH6), and to me I thought the GH6 must be the next big thing bc compared to the GH4, the GH5 brought so much to the table other cameras didn't have. Now, seeing how they literally abandoned the GH6 after one year feels like a betrayal. It doesn't have Focus Stacking like the GH5 had, it doesn't have the Livestream functionality of the GH5 mk 2, the streaking issue is probably also still there, but hey we can use the new 500$ audio adapter on the GH6 without float recording (which makes it kinda irrelevant since the previous version is still fine). I remember how many people would critizise the GH6 in reviews bc Fullframe Cameras catched up with a lot of things except with open gate recording, but on the GH7 reviews so many talk about Raw recording like the prores Feature in the GH6 wasn't worth mentioning in any way. People also stopped comparing the built in microphone since they changed the audience for the GH7. The GH6 got even bullied for the same mic bc blackmagic had a much better internal mic on their cinema pocket camera. But on the GH7, it suddently doesn't matter? Most people buying the GH7 won't be hollywood producers and most that do switched away from MFT. Considering that the GH7 also doesn't have focus stacking and livestreams only up to 1080p, I'll probably wait upgrading simply bc I won't be able to really sell it at a good price, and if the GH8 releases in another year, the GH7 is obsolete. 😵💫
I find the HDR footage has a very unfortunate shot-on-iPhone look about it. I loathe that HDR video look on RU-vid, and a lot of people with eye problems complain about it. I wish RU-vid would give us a setting to turn HDR off. Meanwhile I use the GH5 II. I also have the GH5s for when I am feeling cinematic, but I prefer the GH5 II over all. I also have a G9 which is great for travel. I have a savings account that is labelled GH7, but I have a feeling I will end up getting the G9 II instead. Smaller, lighter, uses two SDXC slots (while still permitting higher bit rates to external recorders) and every codec I will realistically ever need to use. All for a lower cost, and better for travel.
Interesting you picked up the gh7 actually! cus all it's really known for is it's improved dynamic range with new sensor and dgo and the arri LOG-c3 and prores and all that, which im guessing you probably isn't gonna need or shoot in? but I'm glad you are enjoying your new camera! the stabilization on mft cameras are still king and the phase detect af is excellent. lowlight is about as good as the gh5s but without that really strong noise reduction mushiness.
Love hdr but mostly doesn't work well on most mobile phones still, my samsung screen goes a bit too pinkish really in hdr or maybe its just me wanting to have more blues in my content...
Quick tip on the CFexpress type B cards - you can just get one of those small 2230 SSDs and an adapter, and they work with the Lumix perfectly while being cheaper
Hey Phillip, I'm sure you've talked about this before in one of your videos, but what is your storage solution for all this footage? Both in game and External with the camera? I imagine one of your handbrake videos would answer my question
Last I remember from your camera updates, you were rocking a camcorder type setup for your filming adventures How much of a hassle/change was it to go from camcorder type devices to recording with a mirrorless camera? And do you miss the ergonomics/aesthetics of camcorder type recorders?
This was my first time watch HDR videos. I'm on my Pixel 7, which I suppose do support HDR videos. And I must say, sometimes it can be painful to watch(?) because some colours felt really2 bright and sharp, right now I'm having a headache even after 10 minutes finished watching the video.
@kliksphilip I think it's because im sitting in a not very well-lit room, where usually the phone screen would dim quite a bit, but with HDR, the brighter colours seemed to be cranked to the max brightness. And I suppose it doesnt help that my eyes are concentrating on such a tiny screen with such high intensity lights. Maybe I have some sort of epilepsy that I'm not aware of. But I remember when you did the flashbang HDR video, how did that not cause you any headache staring at a screen that goes from dark to blindening bright in a split of a second multiple times?
You dont really need to shoot in 60fps unless you want you do slow motion. Its more important to get natural motion blur. Setting the frame rate to 25 and the exposure time to 1/50 will give you a smooth image with natural motion blur. You can still control the brightness of the image by changing the ISO and aperture. For reference, thats how almost every movie is shoot. If you want to shoot in 60fps you should still half your exposure time to 1/120 so it will give you said natural motion blur. You might know that already I just wanted to mention it anyways. Also at the end of the day it doesn't really matter if you are fine with the image. Might not even be worth the afford as long as it looks good enough for your purposes. I just think its nice to know about stuff like that because obsessed with cinematography.
@@kliksphilip I don't find films to be juddery but I can understand that some prefer a higher frame rate. My point was more than 60fps is worth the extra file size (imo). For me personally, I find that too short of an exposure time looks very jittery. I mitigate that by always halving the exposure time from the framerate. Thats a really common solution to get natural looking motion blur. for 60fps that would be 1/120 exposure time. But those are all just standards for cinematography and I fully understand thats its just a matter of personal preference to like it or not. I think that at the end of the day what matters most is that you like the result yourself! ^^
Im guessing you were trying to say that 60 fps isn't worth the extra filesize but it's often only slightly more than 30 FPS with modern codecs since small shifts can be done very bitrete effectively
@@kliksphilip fair enough, if you are using more lossy codec like h.265 etc. which im guessing is enough for your purposes. I’m used to Inraframe more lossless codec like ProRes or BRAW where the file size usually almost doubles with 2x the frame rate. What I also meant, but did not describe well is that you need a lot more light to properly expose 60fps to get natural motion blur. For that you would need to jump from 1/50 to 1/120. That means you would lose more than a stop of light (-1EV). Again that’s all probably not very important for you especially if you use HVEC or h.264 etc. and a high ISO value with a lot of denoise and are not concerned about motion blur. My guess is that you won’t be planing on doing any more complicated color grading anyways which is totally fine. It’s all diminishing returns at some point anyways. Like I said I think it’s more important for anyone to be happy with their results instead of overthinking the process. Just wanted to but my input out there ^^
The Sony A7Siii is a popular camera among RU-vidrs and that thing is 3.5k USD for the body alone; the GH7 might only be _slightly_ cheaper but it punches well above anything else at it's price point. I might just be a Lumix jerker but I don't know how they keep doing it
Camcorder went out of fashion because most camera companies were pumping their money into dslr's and lots of modern tech didn't transfer into them. Not to mention their just not great for taking photos, while a modern mirrorless or even a dslr from 10-15 or so years ago takes both great video and photos making it more useful. But the parfocal/optical zoom lenses of camcorders are awesome. Also just curious, were you shooting in log?
Right now I dislike HDR, cause for some reason it just makes the video super dark on my phone and i have to turn it up all the way, only to get blinded by the screen as soon as a ui element pops up (like the volume slider)
I don't know, I know nothing about still photography! If it helps my mum loves the gh5 and pixel 6 pro phone and says, when armed with those two, she can always get a good picture somehow. Pixel 6 pro pics fail upon close inspection but are so easy to take and do well at a pinch
@@kliksphilip The crappy thing about the Pixel 7 Pro is the fact that the default camera app only really supports JPEG with heavy post processing. Fortunately they let you capture negatives, if you're curious I put two pictures in my google doc. drive.google.com/drive/folders/1P_el4C83W7HpxDePflwAAWq1zMqcjs-9
I don't understand the dislike of people for camcorders. You don't want a lossless 15x zoom? WHY? It stays in focus all the time, and I can zoom into on a tiny little thing, and see it clearer than my eyes do......
