That's a great camera. Thanks for subscribing!

Saying I use it for "all my videos" is hilarious when that's not even close to accurate, but who cares, right? 😂

@ I thought you used FF cameras for your videos? Maybe you switched? If so, why did you switch if M43 cameras are so great? Just curious

@@michaelbell75 Pick the right tool for the project or job at hand with what is available at the time. That's what I did. All the best.

I haven't used the Aphex, but the DBX is great for voice over stuff.

Thanks for your prompt response. Merry Christmas.

Thank you! All the best.

Thanks, tubekane! I appreciate the membership, mate. Thank you. All the best for Christmas and the new year :)

You can do up to 120fps 4k with AF on the G9II but without eye and face tracking.

You are correct, M4/3 isn’t compact any more. For example, the GH7 is a fucking brick

The G9II and S5II bodies are the same size, but the G9II has an extra custom function button on the front, no active cooling, and it's lighter than the full frame line and the GH5II, etc. People usually think the G9II is going to be heavy, and it's even smaller than the the OG G9.

@ probably even better ibis with all the extra room for the smaller sensor ?

Well said!

@photographiezautrement The standard Panasonic S f1.8 lenses for L mount have been assessed as optically the same as equivalent Leica F2 lenses other than coatings. So I’m not sure it is fair to rank Panasonic Leica and Oly Pro MFT lenses above all Panasonic S lenses. I have 10 MFT lenses including 4 Olympus F1.8 lenses, 2 Panasonic Leica primes and the Oly Pro 12-40mm and am a fan of the system. I note the MFT lenses need to be high quality to resolve detail commensurate with the smaller pixel sizes on MFT. But the Panasonic ‘ full frame’ lenses are also excellent.

@@Democratiser "The Panasonic S f1.8 standard L-mount lenses have been rated as optically identical to the equivalent Leica F2 lenses, except for coatings. So I'm not sure it's fair to rank the Panasonic Leica and Oly Pro MFT lenses above all Panasonic S lenses." Rated by who? DXO labs? lol. Let's be serious. Lens "ratings" on the internet (or worse, by dxo Labs) are pathetic. That's not what my eye says, and my eye has seen all the best in very high-end photo lenses. I'm not saying the 18 is bad (it's probably the best of the standard ƒ/1.8 series lenses). I'm just saying it's nowhere near the quality of a 50 ƒ1.4 S Pro for example. And even if the 18 were "Leica quality" (you said so, even Panasonic wouldn't dare), then its quality would be comparable to MFT lenses "I have 10 MFT lenses, including 4 Olympus F1.8 lenses, 2 Panasonic Leica primes and the Oly Pro 12-40mm, and I'm a fan of the system. I notice that MFT lenses need to be high quality to resolve details due to the smaller pixel sizes on MFT. But the "full frame" Panasonic lenses are also excellent." "Excellent" (and I didn't say otherwise) is NOT the criterion here. The criterion is "higher quality" or "comparable to Leica M, Leica S, Leica L, Schneider Kreuznach, Hasselblad H (High-End Fujinon), Hasselblad V (Zeiss), Panavision (cinema), High-End Fujinon (Cinema) lenses, etc in terms of rendering and optical quality. The criterion is: What are the 24x36 lenses of a quality at least as good as the "high quality" MFTs, which will allow there to be no degradation in optical quality/rendering when comparing MFT to 24x36. (be careful, in MFT I am only talking about the "high quality" Olympus Pro ƒ1.2 Prime lenses (17, 25 and 45) and the Leica Lumix in terms of comparison, even if the more "modest" MFTs remain Excellent anyway) So no, the "1.8" range from Lumix is ​​not at this level of excellence and besides Panasonic does not claim it. The day the "S Pro" range is extended beyond the excellent 50 ƒ/1.4 S Pro, things will be different. You are well aware that between the 50 ƒ/1.8 and the 50 ƒ/1.4 S Pro there is a difference isn't it? That's the difference we're talking about. (And no, maximum aperture plays no role in this)

the lens size and price is much better

Factually false. You always have to compare the equivalent lenses. Not direct aperture comparisons. So the PL 25mm f1.4 should be compared against a full frame 50mm f2.8. You cannot claim a f1.2 or f1.4 photo on M43 is the same as a full frame at f1.4, because the DoF is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Stop spreading lies. On FF, you'll need to stop down to 2.8 just to match M43, which requires 2 stops more ISO (all else equal), and hence the resulting images will be similar in all of the following aspects, DOF, Noise performance, FOV. This is both a pro and con for every system. FF will need a higher ISO to keep things in focus while M43 gets away with lower ISO (sometimes even base ISO due to the industry leading IBIS of Panasonic and Olympus). So for still subjects, I'd even argue M43 is BETTER than FF in low light since you can handhold 1-2sec exposures at f2.8 while FF requires f5.6 at maybe 1/60 at 50mm, hence a much much higher ISO. Regarding lens quality, you're totally wrong. If you go read up on how sharpness and resolution is calculated (check imatest), you'll understand that FF requires a less sharp lens to resolve the same detail as a crop sensor with a sharper lens. This is based off how many line pairs that can be detected per PHYSICAL mm of the sensor size. Larger sensors mean there's more surface area to detect lp and hence a sharper score. This will come into play when viewing or printing at the same size. So a cheap lens on FF will outperform a sharp lens on M43. That's why some M43 lenses are EXTREMELY cost/size inefficient, such as the PL 10-25 f1.7 (20-50mm f3.4) zooms vs the Sony 20-70mm f4. This is not unique to M43, it happens even on top tier Fujifilm APSC lenses too. It's harder to engineer wider angle lenses for the same equivalence, requiring more special elements, coatings, and lens design, resulting in larger lenses. In fact, Fuji's own 50mm f1.0 was originally a 33mm f1.0 for a 50mm equivalent lens. But it got so heavy and required a tripod collar that they decided to scrap it and rework the focal length to a 50mm because it was easier. Go read and compare tests by Optical Limits on the Sony 50mm f2.5 and the Olympus 25mm f1.2 PRO. The Sony is lighter, cheaper, smaller, and sharper by a lot (~4200 lw/ph vs ~2800 lw/ph). Or read any lens testing article with equivalent lenses. That said, while FF yields objectively technically superior images, we still cannot ignore the pros and cons that every system has. My Sony FF has such useless IBIS it might as well not be in there, whereas M43 IBIS is super reliable. Also the other feature sets unique to M43 cannot be ignored. Things like 4:3 open gate on Lumix, stacked sensors by OM System and although a rebranded Sigma 150-600mm lens, having a 1200mm equivalent reach without TCs is a neat feature. If I were to do social media marketing full time, I would go with a GH7 over a FX3 or FX6, even if you gave them to me for free. The 4:3 format is far superior to any kind of image quality advantage one gets out of a FF sensor for socials. In fact I'm shooting Sony FF now, but I'm looking to add a GH7 or G9ii for video especially with the PL 10-25mm. A technically superior image is useless without all the other supporting elements. There was a Hong Kong director who shot a movie on a GH5S. When his budget was reduced, he decided against the ARRI and shifted the budget to focus more on actors, staff, lights, sound. Because a noiseless badly constructed image is inferior to a well crafted but mildly noiser scene. TL;DR No. It's better to have a cheap lens on FF than a sharp one on M43 because it is sharper, cheaper, smaller, and lighter. Because science (and math I guess). HOWEVER! all formats have their pros and cons. Image quality is only one small aspect in any project. People have shot features, magazines and billboards with crop sensors. As long as they have dual SD slots, they're professional enough.

I don't have the 35-100 but I should get a copy of that one at some point :)

I liked my copy of the PL 12-60 so much more than the 12-35 2.8 and the Olympus 12-40 2.8ii. Personally I feel like that's the best M43 zoom lens available.

I have the 35-100 and it is excellent. Having said that I regret the missed opportunity of not buying the Olympus M.ZUIKO 40-150 2.8 Pro. The same fast lens advantage as the 35-100 but the extra reach is something I wish I had and more than worth the difference of 35mm to 40mm at the wide end. I'd be willing to accept the larger size of the Olympus for the extra range.

@@Princeton_James I love the 12-40mm pro including the fixed aperture. Is it the additional reach of the 12-60mm which makes you prefer that lens?

It's 43c in perth right now (hot as!) so we'll see how it goes. It survied the last trip but I'll comment on that on a video for sure coming up.

@@GeekyNerdyTechy We have dialled the temp back to the mid-20s for the next 4 days for you. That should give you time to acclimatise. 😉

It's a great filter. I occasionally knock them too dark when I am in a rush 😂 I like them to be idiot proof when you're outside getting sun blasted in your face.

@@GeekyNerdyTechy Understandable🤝

Do you expect to miss the S9 at all?

Thanks! I still use these till this day. :) Enjoy.