Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix S5

Scott: FYI, Leica SL released in 2015 had 4.4mp and Leica SL2 with Panasonic S1 have 5.7mp released before Sony a7rvi

How is Nikon to compete with Canon, when Canon does everything the Nikon does for the same price, plus 8K video? Nikon will HAVE to put high-end video into their cameras, or miss out on a lot of customers, who would otherwise buy their cameras. Until now, Nikon offered more dynamic range, but now the R5 has the dynamic range AND it can do 8K video. That makes the Z7 seem pretty lame, doesn't it?

I was gonna say the same thing but I might get called on and even worst call a jerk.

He is right. Women are certainly interested in photography, but not in sitting around on the internet reading about and discussing photography gear.

In general, with at least a standard deviation separation, women are more interested in people compared with men who are more interested in things.

Scottelly has a point about how advertising is (or at least used to be) set up. To put it bluntly: sex sells.

However, the times they are a-changin' and in this area, for the better. Even if more slowly than they should.

What make you so sure that the person holding the camera is a woman?

It is simple biology...guys like to take pictures of gals! It sure is sad that this isn't obvious!

I like to take pictures of gals.

Are you trying to take the extremely unscientific, religious view that gender is a social construct?
Or do you really think it's pervy or something to enjoy photographing women? It's not really my favorite subject but it's definitely higher on the list than photographing other men. Is that not a truism for most heterosexual males?

Alright Hoxton, what are we supposed to think? Jeebus, I like to think that I'm reasonably woke most of the time, but I am the proverbial CIS, het, white male. Yes, my type are to blame in general for the patriarchy, vast overprivilege, etc. and I get that. But in what general way is the statement that I like to photograph women-with their enthusiastic consent of course-indicative of me, or anyone else who shares this interest, being an idiot?

I'm really confused what you think is stupid or nonesense?

Maybe you can take a position instead of just acting righteous?

Sex is a biological fact (aside from very rare instances). Gender is a set of behaviours, dress, roles, assumptions about disposition and capability, etc that are socially (and consequently differently) determined - the evidence, in so far as it is needed is manifest and largely uncontested. In other words, girls are not born in dresses, wearing makeup, and wanting to serve men dinner.

Given that what I have said, cannot by any stretch of the imagination, be a premise without evidence, the religion analogy is entirely false. Although I do agree that those who believe the world is only 6000 years old and was designed by an all-powerful being are in fact quite mad. Nevertheless, they are at liberty to believe what they like as a matter of private - and not public - choice, in a free and secular state.

Your depiction of gender roles has nothing to do with gender. This is a straw man. Of course a particular culture's gender roles are culturally determined. The argument is circular.

The consequences of gender being entirely a cultural construct would mean there would be no measurable differences between men and women outside of the physical characteristics that define their sex. This is easily proven false by contradiction. I gave an example: women's preference for people vs men's preference for things. There are many more such examples. The natural sciences continue to provide these examples, while the pseudo-scientific gender study departments continue to practice the same apologetics the religious do, and continually beg the question.

The relevance to dpreview is clear. Do you think women are culturally conditioned not to come here to discuss photography equipment? No, there are no women here because they are not interested. Yes, I'm speaking in generalities.

See, we just found Mr. Bolton, effectively a young earth creationist.

We have only ever observed many statistically significant differences between men and women. Almost every single animal on the face of the earth has statistically significant differences between genders. But somehow humans are physically different (created in the image of god?) and any observed difference is caused by culture. This is taken as an article of faith. This is the idea you wish were true and then you work backwards to explain the mountains of contradicting data. That's called apologetics, not science.

Me, a young earth creationist because I argue that gender studies is a real science and that "the fairer sex" is one hundred percent cultural conditioning?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA come on, you're pulling my leg, right?!
You know I'm an Athiest, right? I apologize for nothing.

You're obviously not a young earth creationist, but you seem to subscribe to an ideology just as ludicrous and counter to physical evidence. The idea that women, who are physically required to carry and feed babies for a non-trivial percentage of their life does not result in many real gender differences (due to different 'fitness functions' in natural selection) is just as insane as young earth creationism.

Someone who believes such nonesense does not see the world through the lens of biological evolution and does not pay attention to the women and even toddlers in their life. Also, where are the women on this board? Do they not have the internet? I've seen them on the internet. They use it just as much as men, but they don't come here, in general. Is that social conditioning? Ridiculous...

You have two daughters? So no contrast? Surely you can contrast how you think about thinks vs your wife? Are you just not introspective at all?

I think there are many more women photographers than there are women photographers that want to discuss photography equipment. Photography is more universally appealing. Discussing DFD, PDAF, and format equivalence with strangers is apparently not interesting to most women.

As far as evolutionary pscyhology being bunk but womens studies being a hard science.... I don't know what paradigm you make sense of the world with, but it must be a very confused one. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

Way to totally, completely miss the point I just made. "I think there are many more women photographers.." The scientific stats say otherwise. If 18 percent of women are pro photographers, then shouldn't 18 percent of posts here be from women? Maybe they are, and hiding their gender because who could blame them.. but maybe not.

Do you know any women photographers? Why don't you ask them if they lurk on gear sites.

I know more women photographers than men photographers because sometimes my job brings me in contact with photo editors. None of them have any interest in photography gear palaver.

I do know many more men who don't consider themselves photographers but have the newest cameras and care about their gadgets. They also take pictures.

Look, saying male/female differences wouldn't exist without some kind of cultural conditioning begs the question. It is a circular argument with no primary, generative evidence. It's just an article of faith of a modern day religion.

Does culture keep women away from industries where they would thrive? Of course. I'm a software engineer, I believe fully that my industry would benefit from more women.

On the other hand, your position is contradictory. If women and men are the same, hirng more women does not actually increase diversity.

You're changing the argument. There's a difference between women and men being the same as in, there are no gender difference; versus the way cultural conditioning has spent ages warping those differences into "men are gearheads, women don't care about their gear."

And yes, I do know a number of women photographers-they're quite conversant on what their gear can and cannot do. If you read what both female and male photographers that I know would say about their gear (on paper, so you didn't know if male or female) it would be impossible to discern the gender of the person talking.

I am also a software industry veteran, although it's been awhile. Arguments like yours are the reason why "the fairer sex" aren't more prevalent in the software world. You don't come out and call them that, but it's what you're saying.

I'm calling them the fairer sex because I think they don't geek out on gear? You didn't actually contradict me. You said they know things about their gear, I never said they didn't. I said they aren't interested in their gear the same way men are, in general.

Are you really having difficulty understanding this distinction? Do you use Pinterest? Are you an instagram influencer? Women naturally are interested in different things than men and it has nothing to do with culture. Is that really that difficult to admit or imagine?

What's wrong with the software industry is a perception problem. Women thrive in it but they aren't attracted to it because it has an image problem. I believe the broken cultures in silicon valley are due to not having enough women and this becomes a self perpetuating situation unfortunately....

No, I'm correct, women do not geek out on gear, and it doesn't make them whatever pejorative thing you are trying to construe it makes them. It just makes them different. Which they are. Which you keep proving over and over again, but your paradigm for looking at this is just so broken that you don't see all of the contradictions that you have to take on...

Basically, what your'e saying is that men and women act the same, but our culture perceives them differently and women are penalized. Again, this is just wrong. Men and women do not lead with the same styles. Women are much more socially aware and I think make better people managers than men, in general. I have had women managers and men managers, they are NOT the same. That's GOOD! It means increasing diversity will probably have a positive effect on the whole company, vs trying to brainwash everyone into believing that men and women are the same but are just perceived differently. That is a just a lie at this point.

Maybe the the comments are from women using male names.Who knows

Great 👍

Hilary Clinton is your example of someone negatively impacted because of being a woman? Shouldn't you use a less successful woman as an example? I mean she did win the popular vote. You want her to win the election too? Maybe she should have been less phony and she could have beaten the orange goon in the electoral college?

Regardless, you're not really proving your point. If a woman is called 'bossy' or a 'b"""*' for, as you are intimating, acting like a man, it's not like the person is giving them constructive feedback, they are being insulting. The thing about insults is that if there is no plausibility to them, they are just nonesense.

You're married and you're telling me your wife did not behave differently towards your daughters vs you. Who was "bossier"? Who was more cautious and worrisome? Have you honestly no personal experience that you have to ignore to pretend men and women are the same?

I said nothing about being "emotionally intune". You're not arguing with a cliche here, you're arguing with someone who actually pays attention and has decades of science on their side.

You didnt answer my question. I asked who was "bossier". The truth is that women generally don't lead like men. If someone is trying to knock a woman down a peg, it's not to enforce gender roles. Power is being struggled for. Maybe the person doing it is misogynistic, but it's done because it can be effective.

And no one ever became president without being attacked. The truth is that Hillary was a bad candidate at the wrong time that a gender change would not fix. They've changed the gender this year and the polling simulations have not improved much. Hillary had a 70pct chance of winning the day of the election. Biden has maybe a 75 at this point. The unfair perception of gendered behavior has little to no effect here. I'm sure some sexism did, but that's not the same thing.

"Your new camera will be obsolete in record time!" With 2.36 M-dot, the EVF is obsolete at release time as it suffers from pixelation. That's a pity for an otherwise nicely specced $2000 camera. The EOS RP has a similar EVF, but for a significantly lower price.

As always there is a point of diminishing returns. The 1MP EVFs were the bare minimum to be usable. 2MP was a noticeable improvement.

The S5 has a fairly low VF magnification. Surely done to make the 2MP VF more palatable, as a larger magnification VF would show pixelation more. 3 MP VFs are where we can start to forget we are starting at a small TV screen and equally importantly it allows a large VF magnification. I'm sure 5MP and more helps, but I think 3MP gets you to the sweet spot and certainly is not leading edge tech anymore.

The S5 is neither really cheap nor really small (only in relation to Panny's other large/expensive cameras) so a small 2 MP EVF on a $2K camera makes no sense in 2020.

I own a Canon RP with a 2 MP VF and its pretty good, but it also has a rather small magnification which is necessary to obtain the cameras very compact size. On a camera like the RP where the size is really compact and the price is half the S5 I'm OK with that.

Most things improve except camera screens. iPhones and Samsungs have screens about 10 times better sharper and with more resolution.

@muljao 2.36 M-dot suffered from pixelation a few years back too. At that time I was insisting in an OVF. Only high M-dot numbers and refresh rates of recent cameras make me rethink.
Btw. I'm living with 2.36 M-dot on my P950 because there is no better compact option for 2000mm equiv. on the market -- and it's not my main camera. But the S5 should be a different league -- and it faces strong competition.

It does leave the S1 in a strange position.

The S1 is big and heavy - heavier than most DSLRs in fact, but probably more rugged as a result. The tilting screen would also make me lean towards the S1, as a stills shooter.

But the lighter weight and smaller size of the S5 make it an attractive proposition, especially as the ergonomics don't appear to have been sacrificed in the quest for compactness, as they have on some other MILCs.

Nikon Z5 did not scrimp on the EVF, but they did on the non-BSI sensor. Yes, a good EVF is important but a good sensor is just as important. If the Z5 sensor performance is only marginally worse than the S5's, I'd pick the Nikon, otherwise I'd pick the Panasonic

The problem with the Z5 is that non-BSI = slower to read. People told me that the AF is not as good as Z6 in low light, and you are getting also more rolling shutter effect with the Z5.

Adam Maas can believe that for still subjects. I used to love my 4/3 for such shots and it was good for video too but then I had children and the AF truly stinks for rapid fire portraits. I'm sure it's improved but I'd never go back.

I already have lenses that I wish to adapt.

@LP

What? L mount is nutty. You pay $950 for a nifty fifty and many of the lenses are monstrous pieces of glass to lug around (e.g. 35mm). And selling the 20-60mm F3.5-5.6 for $600 is nutty when Tamron sells a 28-200mm for $730 over on E mount.

To be fair E mount started off much the same way (55/1.8 & 35/2.8 pricing...), and I think LP was suggesting Sigma would fill a lot of lower price points... 1st party prices are going up across the board tho, every other Nikon f1.8 prime seems to be priced at $100 over Sony's which were often already pricier than their DSLR counterparts... Sometimes there's a technical justification, sometimes it's just a sign of a contracting market.

I like that 20-60, I'm curious to see what other unusual lens designs Pana comes up with if L mount gets room to breathe... The competition is definitely fierce tho, they should try and lure more third party lens makers in before they go Z/RF.

I agree that the Z5 looks like a good deal for still shooters...until you start adding multiple Z lenses and the total kit price becomes not that different from other brands. Good for current owners of older Nikon-mount lenses, but not as compelling for newcomers.

The Panasonic lenses aren't cheap either. And most of the L mount Sigma lenses are adapted DSLR designs which don't work particularly well with the DFD autofocus system.

US only.

That's a great deal, seeing how lenses hold their value over time pretty well, as opposed to say an upgraded car stereo.