Emanuel

LOL Good one :-)

No, no, their integrity can't be under suspicion! :-D

I told you guys, his popularity is on high : D Good for him. But don't come later to preach me about good Samaritans... :-)

...

No worries, Ken. We have no need to go out of here to mercilessly be under attack... LOL ;-) Moreover, attacking some new camera only to justify the needless compulsion to buy it.

In my native country, there's an old saying which wonders if someone's bad is from the trousers or the ass... I don't think his new unit will save his grace other than keeping his integrity, I hope. This taboo on the skills required to perform a task vs lack of them puzzles me... Copy that.

I hope you never had inferred that from my position because I've seen you to defend him but you never saw me to bash his honest efforts, I sincerely believe. Otherwise, I've been with you on that one. Generalizations can be a bitch. This also applies to everyone. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, we're entitled to have our own opinion, just not our own facts. Pity, people tend to forget it and take themselves in more than their own account.

Well, maybe the guy needs to improve his skills as camera operator? What do you know of the user as shooter? Does GH5 prone to require a skilled cameraman or camerawoman? For sure. Do Canon and Sony have better AF outcome? Very likely, straight out the box and for their superior technology used for AF. Will this stop anyone to buy it? Thousands of them because of disinformation and lack of depth on topic.

This one is the best one available so far IMO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG-G3tIhaig

LOL Good one, my vote for thread's 2nd quote!

Indeed. Disappointing to see. Frankly and I hope sincerity here may be tolerated and really welcome instead, correctness (in every way) should overcome our personal tastes. They can lead us to fail.

Oh by my goodness, what did I write you had disliked? (I've just done a little edit up there) That's non sense. We need to be able to stand any discussion when polite. I won't second you, though. I'll still be able to follow and like your posts when you make it happen. I'll miss your usual likes anyway. Pity you're unable to be reciprocal for such matter ;-) YT mediocrity rules over our heads.

LOL Quote of the thread! :-) I am sorry man, but I am lost on your concern about his business. His popularity is not going down, on the contrary...

There's no bad publicity. It is not a matter of disrespect -- the guy even seems pretty honest on his effort, but objectiveness and excellence.

Exaustive testing means too little when the task is not peanuts and people tend to expect it like that or are unable to go beyond. Life is not easy. Not even when we're used to take it accordingly. Enough is not always enough.

@wolf33d, take a look for the best of sources available instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG-G3tIhaig

LOL Sorry mate, I only try my best to break down that can be deconstructed into harmless information in a different way round the ring ;-)

Yeah, Ken. You're right! At this point of the route, trolling is the fair word to call it ;-)

@jonpais, I'm sorry pal but I see the thing upside down and I'm afraid we will only be going to merry-go-round on this one here. First off and I beg your apologize for my tone here now but that's coming by default LOL : ) from my law school background (before film school on par with camera work for more than two decades and a half now): 1) Where are the facts you may name Imaging Resource as an unreliable site? Because of "sugar-coated reviews", as you say? Listen, I am not even placing in doubt the fairness or not of your judgement on them, just wondering. 2) There were finest samples on their (Panasonic) method of applying NR techniques, very controversial approach BTW. To my book, a crime against IQ, posterior usage and so on. Without mention the most part here seemed to concur; you included I believe, from your posts there. 3) Ah, but the sensor performance (and some cooking) is so good that we've been concluding that mercenary method (I guess we can call it like that) won't play a major role in the further combination after all (so, the proof is in the pudding, once again, my first motto throughout all my posting along the last decade in these and other boards, mainly dvxuser and reduser). 4) Moreover, the thread was all about samples from stills not video frames as very early stated as disclaimer. 5) My thread was produced during the pre-production period -- no camera available, but the samples were ; ) motivating high concern from my side on the methodology applied (as thread's subject), so presented as a worry, presage, warning, a (bad) sign, foreshadow, threat... so, something that could/can even be corrected if they would be reading (I'm afraid not, though) such lines. 6) The detractors of GH5 AF have been coming to successively post a few disinformation based on their production (!) units because they simply have no clue how to overcome eventual limitations of the system, they don't even care how to properly use it in order to extend all the potentiality of features like touch to focus, as for instance. 7) We do mention here of professional reviewing, that is, the reviewers are paid by affiliate sales, so I guess that's a consensual statement which automatically implies some responsibilities associated -- as craft, for the crafts and professionals targeted, for the brand(s) with its (their) name and interests involved; and, of course, susceptible (both sides, not only the manufacturers) to public criticism, mainly by the readers and in behalf of the facts. 8) They're hurting GH5 sales from their unskilled perspective. You are an intelligent mod here, so it is your duty to not feed up this mistake as much as mine proud to be a serious player to post good news from low light performance whenever this camera is able to. Once more, that's what the historic of my posting in that thread fairly concurs. E :-)

Yes, and I'd have opened it again. I still post there as much as when pops up new stuff worthy to be posted, as it is possible to check in my most recent posting in the same thread ; ) Merit of those samples (#1). As written then, still samples but yet... The way they apply NR -- deteriorating the natural grain high ISOs obviously introduce (only because Sony is there with their superior full frame technology as far as low light capabilities concerns), is outrageous IMO. I stand it. Despite the Tony Northrup findings now (actually, I was going to post that same link in the same notorious thread when Hanriverprod posted it here in the meantime) and I see now someone else has done it on my behalf. They need to let the operator decide to apply or not whatever setting(s) he/she feels like, instead. Denoising doesn't escape to the rule. Leave it to post is not anything bad either. Automatic modes in photography can variably bring to low quality results. And imponderability at such level can happen to be dangerous. Pity that people want the magical button instead by default. But, we're now discussing AF performance which has made a lot of people to have canceled their GH5 purchase. Based on what? Incomplete/defective method on testing? Misinformation? Lack of knowing the craft? That's the whole point. So, in a line: both points match in coherence. I am able to adopt brand loyalty but I am brand agnostic. My loyalty to accuracy and fairness is much higher ;-) And as you see, I am not alone on this one (I doubt they had read this thread and my protest here or my message to Max Yuryev there but they've surely seen his tests): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyTggg5NcIk

You can stop hunting, locking AF when focused to begin with. As simple as that. Set up the focus peaking and keep the distance to the area in focus, monitoring it in order to not put the focus off over your subject. Depending on the camera movement (RS has never been quite of a trouble when people understand the way a camera should move not exactly spinning around, except when motivated by the subject, that is, formulas like soap operas never much helped the aesthetics of film), it is rather possible to smoothly and quickly move the focus box in the touch screen even with the camera on gimbal. I even bet that an extra IBIS will help you out to keep the stabilizer steady : D Techie pleonasm apart and yes, these things require solid training but, like the bikes, once you get it... ; ) Not yet? As eltorrete has just posted, mobile app will be easy going and your friend. Let's not forget touch to focus is part of AF system and if has worked in a 5-years now GF5, count on it shooting with their last and improved toy. This 'GH5 AF sucks' is pure BS. Only shooters do suck if/when that happens. Moreover, AF performance is not all the same, neither all the Panasonic/Olympus lens models, focal lengths, etc, with several versions included, better to test it before going to shoot without mention the infinite range of settings combination, various speed, sensitivity on responsiveness (Max Yuryev only tested +3 and -3... c'mon *Phew* see Tommy Callaway's test and his different settings, for example) and so on (again, no free lunch), isn't it? :-) Here's another test, not mine, but gives a scope that even the most lazy AF varies on the results in the very end: And why not to take a look on the comments too? ;-)

Trust me, I am not YT user 'Real World Endo' in disguise... :-D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9P4MAqPj78

To each its own. Faith matters ain't able to be certified by scientific eulogy. Or vice versa. So...

Who? Max Yuryev? Seems legit. Barry Green is a notable Panasonic man. He's incredibly skilled to find workarounds for (t)his brand flaws. Well, more focused on his dames inside there, the Panasonic professional cameras. Because the infamous DSLRs, mirrorless nowadays or the new terminology DC used by GH5 BTW, are almost some other playground : D less today than yesterday. More biased than his approach is hard to find. His input is invariably outstanding, though.

Man, read the last pages: this is previous week news. Sorry, but you know how news run fast these days... ;-) This kind of reports on bad AF performance reminds me when people want to mimic Hollywood from default settings on their Walmart camera :-D