>>4414953They have one good lens (new 100mm macro) that matters to maybe 3 people
Their lenses are generally ovesized, 1st party expensive for tamron quality, and underperform their canon nikon and sony counterparts. While not even having character. No, their giant beer can+ sized lenses are as sterile as ever. It's quite bad.
>>4414994>Buying a camera with a 2/3s autofocus miss rate for birdinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI96GNuRBtY&t=210sThe s1rs autofocus demos, at the behest of panasonic, who supplies the shills, have mostly focused on video, which is way less demanding because most frames are motion blurred and focus taking a few frames to catch up is totally fine as long as the object tracking works.
I also LAUGH at the commentary. It's very clear now that brands tell people what to say when these on-release review videos flood youtube. This thing costs MORE than the Z8.
In photography it misses 2/3s of the time. Just like every other panasonic. There is a damn good reason sony and canon own the FF market. The panasonic S1RII essentially being a nikon Z7II (down to the crap autofocus) with some genuinely useless video shit thrown in should tell you why. That, and panasonic shills still seriously insisting a device without a shutter or a hot shoe is useful instead of a marketing scam.
If everyone else is buying a canon, maybe it's not a conspiracy. Maybe canon cameras are legitimately superior, and spending $3300+lenses on an S1R is actually a really fucking stupid idea compared to spending half that on an EOS R5, which is somehow a superior camera and smaller and lighter despite being older (hitting focus every time >>>> whatever video codec youtubers and jacking off to before changing it to heavily compressed 720p, while the oscars are still going to shit shot on 35mm)
This is not my opinion, it is a fact
There is NO GOOD reason to EVER buy a panasonic, and NO ONE should EVER buy a panasonic, period. Huge waste of money.
