Shield3

I make a good living and was ready to hand B&H my CC# for one + the 35 1.8 and the 28-70 F/2. I told myself I would not if the crop was worse that 1.4-1.5 in UHD. Canon shot themselves in the foot again. Canon is like the EX you broke up with a couple years ago - she comes back around every so often - you have a good one night fling and romanticize about the past. Go out to dinner, talk about the 5d3 raw back in 2013, hop into bed. Then the next day you hear she's still doing drugs - hasn't changed at all. There's a reason you two broke up. I wanted to be wrong here - haven't been excited about a camera for a while - I hate the Sony colors and overheating, hate Panasonic's shitty AF, etc. Yes, but are you 100% sure it's UHD out and not just 1080p out? I don't recall any Canon bodies doing UHD HDMI out.

Up early this morning. Good news and bad. Bad news - crop factor in UHD = 1.67 Good news - C-Log is available. So your 28-70 F/2 in UHD mode is now a 47-117mm lens. Puke.

Had my hopes up very briefly for this one. I highly doubt it'll have less than a S35 1.5x crop in video mode, and also doubt more it'll have C-LOG. I wish I could buy the camera today that Canon is going to release...in 2030.

I have toyed with buying this on launch day with the 28-70 F/2. But this site brought me back to reality - it is probably the same sensor in the 5dIV. Probably 1.74x crop 4k, no 4k60, No C-LOG. Have to force myself to be patient. The appeal of Canon colors, EVF, fully articulated screen and 28-70 F/2 is very strong, but too many times I've been disappointed recently with Canon (No C-Log on the 1dxII, 5dIV video codec and crop, 6dII was a joke, etc. Hope to eat my words in a week. Doubt I will.

That's because it is 30p; a 1dxII conforms to 30p in camera when shooting 1080p120 (4x slowmo). No you cannot change it to 24p either.

I've been using an A6500 + Zhyuin Crane + mostly the Sigma 30 1.4. Just watch the RS and the image is great.

Who is throwing rocks? Just stating the FACTS here, which is the 35 1.4 G doesn't get anywhere sharp until F/4. I have owned a ton of Sony gear - A77, a99, a7s, a7r, a7r2, and a ton of Sony A Mount + Minolta glass. I have been a gear whore much like yourself. Just stating the facts that the Sony 35 1.4 G Minolta would never be considered "opticially excellent" by anyone with attached retinas. I have a full time gig managing IT for a large gov't agency - I am not a professional shooter nor do I have time to "write blogs". That's your thing not mine. "Buy some gear"? I've posted a ton of threads on here and elsewhere about the gear I've used, including Sony FS700's, 1dx2's, 1dc's, C100, etc. If it makes you feel better to put down and argue with someone who has a dissented (and educated) opinion on the topic, so be it. It's your playground. All I see as a long time member of this site is you holding very firmly on your "opinon du jour" and insulting folks who disagree. Next week you'll be into another body, and everything before it will be trash. Then you can make some pseudo log profile or sell a how to guide. It's fine if that's how you earn your living - nothing wrong with that. But the F/3.5 AF limitation and "dying" mount is real, and screw drive lenses suck. Whether or not one can work around this is up to them. Have a good one. If I have ruffled your feathers too much here by voicing an alternate opinion and not simply "ooh Andrew, you're right - I'll go buy whatever you suggest" then feel free to delete my account. But don't be an asshole and tell me I'm sitting in an armchair not using gear and throwing rocks. That's a copout. Love, Shield3.

First of all, you don't know me or what I shoot. One cannot shoot kids' baseball or softball and track players' movement without AF. I tried for years - just too tough fighting exposure with ND, monitoring DOF, audio, trying to stay out of the action, keeping the rig stable and anticipating the action. Not everyone shoots the same thing, and not all of us buy/use gear to be the next Martin Scorsese. Not going to waste time typing to someone so obtuse. Enjoy your F/3.5 Sony built in limitation, the ancient Minolta glass and the overheating. I'm not suprised to find the typical Sony fanbois; they're everywhere. Don't waste your breath. I would bet big money Andrew has never personally shot the "optically excellent" Sony 35 1.4 G screw drive lens. Do note he hasn't responded back to my question of "Have you used it personally?" The a99II is just another "camera du jour" for Mr. Reid - he'll find yet another new shiny penny next week.

Hello? It's not even excellent at F/4, let alone F/2. Have you shot this lens on the a99 II? Here's some more good reading on this lens: http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/35mm-f1.4-g-sal-35f14g/review/ For the price a lens this bad until F/4 is not worth the money. Add in the "screw drive" and it'd be the last lens I'd want. I had the 24/2 Zeiss though and it is nice, but this lens is in no way a replacement for the Canon 35L original from 1998. I won't even bring up the version II as it would be laughable. As for the a99 II - just can't get past the silly F/3.5 in video AF - it's a dealbreaker for those shooting moving video subjects and not setup / manual focus things. Viewers notice the wide shutter and aperture changes too much - looks amateurish.

Wait, did he really just say the Sony 35 1.4 G is "amazing optically?" This is easily the softest lens Sony has for the full frame. It's ancient and shitty. http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/389-sony-35-f14?start=1 "The resolution is rather poor at large aperture settings and this is, after all, the primary playing ground of this lens. The situation improves significantly when stopping down to f/4-f/8 although very high lateral CAs can decrease the sharpness perception if not corrected. Distortions and vignetting are very well controlled, less so longitudinal CAs ("bokeh CAs"). Some users mention a very good bokeh (out-of-focus blur) but we failed to see greatness here (note: the quality of the bokeh goes beyond the sheer depth-of-field). The build quality is excellent and the AF is fast enough for most applications. All-in-all a lens which surely had its time but it isn't really prepared for the digital era."

This is a poor analogy. A sports car might go 200 MPH but you can't just give it Prius type fuel economy with a tune (firmware upgrade). Sony could have added this if they wanted to; they chose not to.

I have owned both. I kept the 18-105 - plenty sharp, more range, smoother zoom and focus rings, plus the power zoom.

Yes I do the same with my c100 II - I have assigned the handle custom button to toggle AF. So pardon me if I've missed this, but have your or anyone else simply told Max and/or the Photo guy on Youtube what settings you used?

On the first video, were you toggling any buttons, like AF/AE or half shutter press? At the end of the day can I throw this on a gimbal with your settings and NOT have to touch the camera (i.e. set it on continuous AF and let it do it's thing?)

Ken (Ross) - I would love to see your first test done with faces instead of a lens filling 75% of the screen but I will admit it's far better than Max's tests. I am more confused than ever. The 2nd test was just a very slow movement test and it cut off at the end before it refocused on the background (not saying you intentionally did this - it just cut out before it was getting good). Still, the first test had pulsing and was very abrupt, but still - far better than everything Max did with his human subject. Again, more confused than ever.

Ken, can you simply show us footage of your GH5 shooting a subject at F/2.8 (doesn't have to be 6" from the lens, but a reasonable distance to blur the background) and show the camera autofocusing from the foreground to the background? I mean, if you "never had an issue" this shouldn't be a problem. Very simple test, and tons have done it with a slew of cameras (see Philip Bloom's 3 part AF test). In the real world shooting weddings one might need to AF between subjects that aren't close to one another, and showing us tests of you slowly moving from a street sign at F/16 to a car just isn't the same. I get Max's "suddenly pop into the frame" tests are extreme. But there is a middle ground, and I don't feel you've backed up your claim of "good AF" with the sample videos you've provided in this thread. So. Put something large and contrasty on a table 3 feet in front of you. Have a wall 2-3 times further away. Show your GH5 focusing on the foreground subject, then the background, then to the foreground. I can shoot something with my C100 to provide to you if this seems too complicated. Don't need anyone suddenly popping in the frame - just a simple pan at a reasonably shallow DOF. Thanks.

Despite starting this thread, I hope Panasonic sells a ton of the GH5's and all their other bodies. You have to get behind any company that is giving you their all to COMPETE, along with being rock solid workhorses. Never had any issues ever with Panasonic bodies.

True, very true. In fact the only reason I even started this thread was all the front page topics gushing over the GH5 and Andrew saying how Canon needs to get on the ball. Canon is still #1 in the camera world, has excellent stills cameras and wonderful video AF - there's a reason you see them all over all pro sports venues. Canon could release a camera with all the tech they have now and sell a billion of them - IE 80d body with a FF sensor, the EVF from the C300/C100 II, 305 M/bit codec, 4k60 and 1080p120. You also know Canon sure as hell could make fast STM primes - their bread and butter are with stills photogs though who want the much faster USM focusing.

Yeah I'm 43 and supervise about 25 people at the US federal gov't. I don't drink or gamble and have a modest home nearly paid for with 2 kids (age 10 and 7) so I pretty much blow a ton of my extra income on camera crap. I generally buy used gear and hold onto my glass much longer than bodies. I've heard the phrase "you date the camera but marry the glass". The AF-100 does blow out the highlights pretty quickly but for a well exposed scene it still impresses. Just has that cinematic look especially paired with the Voitlander 25 F/.95 lens - you should at least pick that one up if you haven't already. With a firmware update I thought the AF100 would do 1080p60 and have the over/undercrank option (both things the Gh2 wouldn't do, along with the usual built in ND and XLR audio, dual memory slots, and all the other bells and whistles of a "real" camera. Another random thought off the top of my head - as I get older I find myself not doing things anymore that are a huge hassle even if it means a slightly improved result - i.e. bother with raw on the 5d3. Sometimes the younger crowd will forego conveniences just to squeeze out a ton of extra IQ - just like back in the day we did to get our cars faster - I've had friends with 800 HP Mustangs that was stiff as a board and uncomfortable as hell to ride in - at my age I want the 300 HP car that I can take my family in. Ultimate speed doesn't matter, and neither does ultimate resolution or detail. Ready to shoot and easy to use goes a long way with me, so I'll reach for the camera with better audio, built-in ND and quick to shoot - not something I have to transcode, convert, grade (heavily) or dick around with for hours. I'm old.

I wasn't impressed with the 96FPS on the GH4 and I haven't seen anything that "wows" me about the 180FPS on the GH5. The AF is just unacceptable in video mode even with native glass. Can I see a difference between HD and 4k? Hmm. I have 3 UHD sets in my home that upscale everything to UHD. So for really "good" HD (C100 II) vs. crappy 4k (Canon 5d IV) I prefer the upscaled 1080p. Of course I can tell the difference, but there is so much more than just resolution and sharpness for good video. Smooth glider shots, low angle, multiple camera, shallow DOF as needed, skin tones, story telling all are more important TO ME than absolute detail. I am 20/20 at least in one eye and from a few feet away playing back 4k vs. 1080p on a 60" Vizio set? No, I can't really tell the difference, and neither can anyone in my family. My kids have perfect vision...so. I will say years later the 240FPS of the Sony FS-700 still dazzles friends, so does the C-log on the C100 II and the raw 5d3 footage. Same for the A7s in low light. For me personally the GH2 and AF100 footage holds up remarkably too after 5 years. I find 4k a bit of a bother - I'd rather shoot really good 1080p60 for action and 1080p24 with good colors for everything else. Or setup multiple cameras - cropping 4k still won't give you a completely different shot. But, that's me.

I completely agree with you - in 2012 I shot a ton with my AF100 and GH2, and IMO the AF100 was still better even with the hack on the GH2. Something has to be said for the form factor, built in ND, superior audio, and the fact it was a 2.07 MP camera that didn't have to convert, line skip, pixel bin or downscale at all to get true 1080p. I always enjoyed my AF100; almost as much as my c100 II now.

It's sure as hell not going to conform to 24 or 25p. Lest you forget the 1080p120 in the 1dxII conformed to...30p only in camera without audio.

I can't think of any lens sharp wide open at F/1.2 can you? Even my 85 II is not wonderful wide open. Because it's still physics. All things being equal the smaller sensor will not match the usable (key work, usable) DR of a modern FF sensor. They are touting the 12FPS. A 300 2.8 is the bread and butter of a sports shooter's kit (especially for field sports. This comment of mine was in regards to the photo side of things. Compare the real 800 5.6 size vs. at 100-400 at F/11. It's a big difference in IQ and performance - there's a reason the 800 5.6 is $10k. We'll have to disagree here on the merits of my "factual basis" vs. your confirmation bias.. Glad to see you're so passionate again for the latest camera du jour. I get it - I'm that way too sometimes. Had this on the 1dx II. Is any of the 4k 10 bit in camera? I don't think it is, but I'm not sure. Yeah for stills. Does the video AF work any better, or even as good as the Canons or Sony's? No. Run and gun folks like video AF. If you can honestly see a big difference between the final output of a GH4 and this, then you must be the target audience. I'm just not seeing the big deal here, but that's me.

Fair enough. It's late here and I'm bored. I guess what I'm saying really is the GH5 appears to have improved on something the series is very damn good at already; "Super 16 esqe" sharp detailed footage and rock solid reliability with good battery life. Shooting from a tripod and 24p and on a good 4k TV that upscales 1080 properly - I doubt many could spot the difference between the hacked GH2 (used price, $350) vs. this $2k camera. That's all I'm saying here really - it's just more of the same stuff with added features that will not have much bearing on the final output. I always thought the other GH bodies looked great already. These high end m4/3rd lenses are pretty damn pricey! Just wish Panasonic would have spent more time with their video AF - they are really lagging behind Sony and Canon here. If you're going to tout the IBIS, that assumes handheld work (gimbal or run and gun - both which greatly benefit from something like DPAF).

I'll go against the current grain here and say it's a very nice camera with a ton of cool options. The 1080p120 and 10-bit are appealing for sure. However it's still a "quarter size" sensor that only does CDAF in video mode, doesn't have a built-in ND, does not AF that well at all with the Metabones, still not great in low light, much tougher obviously to get wide and fast (7-14 F/4 is like 14-28 F/8 on FF), dynamic range less due to sensor size, 20MP might be a bridge too far. Don't know - if this was a native S35 sensor with PDAF in video mode I'd be much more excited. I thought the GH3 / GH4 footage all looked pretty good, and I haven't really seen anything that much better or different IMO on the GH5. On the stills size even the .64 Speedbooster isn't going to get you that FF aesthetic no matter the FPS, and there's really no way possible to get anything to match what a 300 2.8 on a FF body (like a 1dx) will give you. They'd need to release a 150mm F/1.4. I personally thought the size of the GH2 made more sense - after all, this is micro-four thirds, right? But hey, to each their own. Just doesn't do much for ME. Would I take one? Sure. Am I going to fork out $2k? Nah.