/linked/2017/11/07/iphone-x-vs-gh5

Comments

piece of kit:
Nice piece of kit.
10:05 pm — Tuesday, 7 November 2017
anonymous:
IN BEFORE CHINESE SPAM
10:18 pm — Tuesday, 7 November 2017
pronce:
these things cost much the same, shoot much the same video. How is that a surprise?
10:59 pm — Tuesday, 7 November 2017
Future John:
The iPhone 22 GTX will be able to shoot in 6D Holographic Sensurround video and record information for all six senses. I already have a review unit and my YouTubeMax video featuring an assortment of teenagers will be up tonight, November 7, 2049, just as soon as I take my heart medication. The teenagers look so real on the video it's like you could reach out and touch them.
11:29 pm — Tuesday, 7 November 2017
Grubology 101:
"Impressive" takes more effort to write than "Nice". Grubs is making an effort.
11:45 pm — Tuesday, 7 November 2017
anonymous:
> these things cost much the same, shoot much the same video. How is that a surprise?

one is a purpose built camera, and one is much more than a camera?
11:57 pm — Tuesday, 7 November 2017
anonymous:
But the GH5 is not a "professional video camera."
1:04 am — Wednesday, 8 November 2017
anonymous:
>LUMIX GH5 4K Mirrorless ILC Camera Body with 20.3 Megapixels, 4K 60p & 4:2:2 10-bit Internal, Dual Image Stabilization 2, & WiFi + Bluetooth DC-GH5KBODY

>Features

>Professional photo and 4K video performance in a durable magnesium alloy body.

you should probably tell panasonic that it's not a professional video camera, they're misleading their customers.
1:10 am — Wednesday, 8 November 2017
Future John:
Come the singularity, everyone is a professional at everything.
1:24 am — Wednesday, 8 November 2017
Gruber the Booger:
Almost every flagship $1000+ smartphone shoots great photos and video. I can't think of one that doesn't.

But the X does look mighty impressive. Seems to be the best right now, but I only have reviews to base that on.

Disclaimer, I am not really a camera person.
1:47 am — Wednesday, 8 November 2017
Ming-Chi Kuo:
这是光荣的信息。谢谢乔恩·格里伯
2:37 am — Wednesday, 8 November 2017
Darling Felcherballs:
In the shots of the guy running, his skin tones on the X are awful. It looks like he's made out of plastic. And how are the X's shots of the brick wall in any way good? Are we not supposed to be representing reality now? Is that not the purpose of a camera anymore?
10:29 am — Wednesday, 8 November 2017
anonymous:
>you should probably tell panasonic that it's not a professional video camera, they're misleading their customers.

Companies do this all the time. It's not my job to correct them. They're not going to stop mis-labelling their products, because it's an effective marketing techniques.

It's a consumer mirrorless camera that also happens to shoot decent video.

Professional video cameras cost way more than this, and use high-end lenses.
12:30 pm — Wednesday, 8 November 2017
Trans Late:
Loved the comment by Ming-Chi Kuo: https://translate.google.com/#auto/en/这是光荣的信息%E3%80%82谢谢乔恩·格里伯
7:19 pm — Wednesday, 8 November 2017
Trans Late:
@Darling Felcherballs No; we no longer wish to remember things as they actually happened, but rather as we might have wished they had happened, in some idealized, thoroughly scrubbed utopian applescape of vivid, pixel-perfect joy.
7:21 pm — Wednesday, 8 November 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!