fbpx
Connect with us

Tech

Panasonic’s Lumix GH6 features the highest resolution sensor ever in a Micro Four Thirds camera

Published

on

Panasonic’s Lumix GH6 features the highest resolution sensor ever in a Micro Four Thirds camera

Why it matters: Panasonic has formally introduced the Lumix GH6, its latest flagship digital mirrorless camera based on the Micro Four Thirds standard. The new GH6 features a 25.2-megapixel Live MOS sensor, the highest resolution sensor ever crammed into a Micro Four Thirds camera. It also packs the new Venus Engine for advanced image processing and contains V-Log/V-Gamut, a first for a Lumix G MFT camera.

The announcement comes nearly nine months after the company teased the camera during a launch event for the Lumix GH5M2.

Panasonic claims the new engine is nearly twice as powerful as the one featured in the Lumix S1H.

Of particular interest is the camera’s video recording abilities. According to Panasonic, the body is capable of 4:2:2 10-bit C4K 60p, 4:2:0 10-bit 4K120p or 4:2:2 10-bit FHD 240p HFR video recording with audio. Furthermore, the GH6 can do 4:2:0 10-bit 5.8K 30p (4.4K 60p) anamorphic 4:3 video by utilizing the full area of the image sensor.

All of that processing power does come at a cost, and I’m not talking dollars. Recording high-res video is a taxing job that requires a lot of power. With power comes heat, and as has previously been demonstrated, thermal shutdown is a very real concern in compact cameras. To combat this, Panasonic has added a cooling fan to the GH6 which it refers to as a “forced-cooling mechanism” in its PR material.

The GH6 additionally boasts a five-axis gyro sensor with an updated algorithm that’s good for up to 7.5 stops of stabilization. The company has also updated the firmware on several lenses to enhance autofocus compatibility.

The Panasonic Lumix GH6 is scheduled to arrive in mid-March. Interested parties can pre-order the body over on B&H Photo for $2,197.99 or grab it with a 12-60mm f/2.8-4 lens for $2,797.99.

Go to Source

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Tech

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 vs. AMD Radeon 6950 XT: Which GPU should you buy?

Published

on

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 vs. AMD Radeon 6950 XT: Which GPU should you buy?

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Go to Source

Continue Reading

Tech

Receive near instant feedback on logos, images, text, and more with Helpfull

Published

on

Receive near instant feedback on logos, images, text, and more with Helpfull

Feedback software

StackCommerce

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Go to Source

Continue Reading

Tech

Confessions of an in-house creative strategist on feeling unfulfilled, difficulty in returning to agencies as the ‘pay is less’

Published

on

Confessions of an in-house creative strategist on feeling unfulfilled, difficulty in returning to agencies as the ‘pay is less’

The war for talent between agencies and brands’ in-house agencies has cooled. Even so, for adland talent who’ve made the move in-house, some say they are looking to go back to agencies after feeling creatively stifled. It’s not the easiest strategy to execute.

In the latest edition of our Confessions series, in which we trade anonymity for candor, we hear from an in-house creative strategist about their experience, why they want to go agency-side now and how pay is keeping them from doing so.

This conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

What’s the in-house experience like?

I’ve been in-house for about a year. It’s very one-sided. The difference between agency and in-house is that with agencies, there [are] a lot of opinions and ideas [outside of the brand message] that go into creative. With in-house, you have the brand’s message and all creative is reflective of the brand’s message. With in-house, regardless of trends in the market, it’s a lot of ‘we’re going to stick to this one way of doing things’ mentality. It’s a lot of opinions about what the creative should be based on what it has been before. It makes it hard to introduce something fresh. It makes it hard to hire or be a new hire. If you’re not actually going to adhere to advice from new hires, what’s the point in getting new people? Are you just bringing people on board for a second opinion? That’s what it feels like.

Sounds like you don’t have the creative control you desire.

It feels like more of a second opinion role than to get something to manage or control. [Where I am now] it feels like we’re leaning more into what [our strategy] used to be than thinking about what we could be. That’s a big issue with in-house. With agencies, like I said, there’s a lot more trial and error. With in-house, a lot more of this is what we’re doing, these are the funds we have and this is what has worked in the past. In reality, a lot of what worked in the past, when you put it back into the market, it’s not going to work anymore. 

Why do you think it’s more challenging to get to a new creative strategy in-house?

With agencies, you have multiple perspectives. You’re working on multiple brands. You can see something working for another brand and talk to your client about it. You can pivot. You have the background and perspective to [pitch that pivot]. When you’re in-house, you only have the knowledge of your brand and what’s working for you. 

Are you looking to go back to agencies? 

Personally, I am looking to go from in-house to agency but I get paid a lot more being in-house than what I’ve been offered at agencies. I’ve been in interviews with agencies where they’re telling me that I’ll be learning [programs I already know how to use] so that’s why the pay is less than what it should be. There are agencies I’ve interviewed with who ask me to move to New York for less than what I make now and make that work. [With inflation,] there’s no reason why salaries aren’t also increasing. 

So you’d like to make the jump creatively but it’s hard when the compensation isn’t up to what in-house offers? 

It’s hard. I’ve been lowballed, too. They’ll post a salary for a position, go through the interviews and then offer less than what’s listed on the salary description. What was the point of putting the salary range there? I feel like people are putting salary ranges on job descriptions just to attract people with the experience that they are looking for but by the time they make the offer, it’s not what they said it would be. It’s offensive.

https://digiday.com/?p=452660

Go to Source

Continue Reading
Home | Latest News | Tech | Panasonic’s Lumix GH6 features the highest resolution sensor ever in a Micro Four Thirds camera
a

Market

Trending