Andrew Benton

Ever since the Gh5 was announced I was ready to go for it, I got it about a month after release... then half a year later the GH5s shows up, wish I waited a bit more! So even if the new Panny FF is announced to be released in the near future I would very much rather wait and see if the "S" variant will show up not long after. But we don't know if the rumored specs are true or what external recording has to offer yet, and if it is indeed priced at or over 3k then there plenty of cameras competing now.

Me too, I'm curious as to how it missed in situations where it shouldn't; subjects lit by spotlight, in broad daylight, not even moving for that matter. I too have used the GH3 and still use the GH4 extensively and I haven't experienced what I did with the GH5. GH4 just snaps on to where I want to focus in photo or video mode as it should, I have lots of nice and sharp action shots, some of my all time favorite photos were taken with that camera. So naturally I assumed I would get the same performance or better with the GH5 but I'm left being more cautious on shoots now. Using lenses such as the 12-35, 35-100 and 75mm 1.8, either the AF was completely worthless and won't even let me get to take the shot, or it would just be inaccurate and focus slightly forward or behind, so for a while I was thinking those lenses were actually not very sharp wide open, or I thought it was something to do with the GH5's sensor design, as when I go to see GH4 shots the lenses were definitely sharp enough.

I didn't say the GH5 was bad, it's just not as great for still photography, what is there not to understand in the listed issues I had with it? My very first wedding I shot was with a T1i and although I got the job done with it there were drawbacks, I later got a 5DIII and it served all my photography needs perfectly. One can very well build a photography career from using a GH5, but it just didn't suite my personal needs in the event photography setting. I still got nearly 2000 usable photos, but I also had many missed shots, that's not acceptable to me. But I still LOVE the GH5 for video, and that's what most other people talk about here, NOT about it's photography side, I was disappointed in the camera not living up to its potential as a true hybrid camera that can do both photography and video well (don't we all want the perfect hybrid). We're all free to use what we want, you can go ahead and use an iPhone for photo/video work and if you get the job done then great!

I agree there, I often tell people who are interested in a "good camera" or who want a DSLR to just get a used one from several years ago, digital stills quality for me has been good enough since around 2009, and most improvements only matter to professionals or people really wanting to get the cutting edge. There are older videos I worked on that I sometimes look at after a while and be surprised at the kind of shots I got using older cameras that to today's standards "suck", while of course there are also just as many shots that I used to think looked great but now don't hold up at all.... But yes, beyond image quality and features it's usability and reliability, and turns out for me the GH5 isn't the right tool either, it is just not a capable stills camera. I shot a wedding a couple weeks ago with it because I needed to get video as well. I love the ergonomics, touch screen, joystick and custom buttons, the menus and viewfinder and options, but the number of missed shots, or how often under artificial lighting colors skin tones were ruined and unrecoverable, where as I could get more pleasing tones out of my 5DIII and my assistant's A7II. And the GH5's AF just couldn't keep up, the thing missed completely at the most inexplicable moments even with native lenses, in broad daylight on contrasty subjects it would hunt, eye focus "locks on" to the subject but turns out it went somewhere else completely when I review the shots. I ended up using my 5DIII more and so I ended up switching back and forth between the two cameras, something I wanted to avoid doing...

Recently I was reviewing some old footage to be used in a project, and there were these shots filmed with the 5DII that were absolutely gorgeous! Compared to all the features, codecs and capabilities of modern cameras the 5DII is terribly limited, but there's just something about that camera's image that feels so great, reminds me how big of a deal DSLR video was when this camera came out.

So true, just TODAY I was seriously wondering if Canon would ever announce a Mk IV as I am looking over at Panasonic and Sony, what a coincidence!! I mean, if that actually is the Mk IV, and really, even if it is I still doubt they would provide anything that could beat the hot competition now... it will be expensive on release, and by that time the current cameras in the spotlight will be cheaper too, I can already get an A7s on the used market for cheaper than a Mk III used as well here. Only if you are stuck with fancy Canon glass is it worth to wait a little while longer.

My Hero3 black bricked right away too, though apparently in my case just fiddling with the settings, pulling the card/battery in and out fixed it. But recently had some broken video clips, recoverable but frame rate halved and macro blocking everywhere. And along with short battery life + battery leakage I wonder how this camera became such a hit with professionals that complain about every imperfection a real studio cam has... image quality is good, lightweight and the case protects the cam from anything but man, internal reliability a little?

Ha, come to Japan, the wedding video monopoly hires videographers that setup a fancy cam on a tripod and just record, may go around stuffing the camera in people's faces and ask for a message to the couple over the shoulder, that's about it. Nothing fancy, nothing nice, simple edits and with no taste for color or getting a nice feel, just boring and uninspired... but oh boy does the addition of a videographer cost like crazy for what people get~

I've already seen three A7/Rs at used shops and makes me wonder if too many people have gone with their conclusion that "it's the answer" and being greatly disappointed upon receiving and using it a little. Or, more likely, just the usual sudden-urge purchase by someone who listened to the salesman and they're chant on how it's the highest quality mirrorless around, and the user realizing they can't figure out how to take the best advantage out of a camera (which tends to mean plenty of good deals on the used market for pro equipment in Japan, so many people just buy and try to sell right away).

Yeah it would have been, because the Oscars after all is just a big Celeb-fest of everyone patting each other for a job well done of being ridiculously rich and famous. It's all just one big political and marketing jumble.... As for the REDs, the last film I remember was Pacific Rim... well, not really a great film, and Amazing Spider-man was RED as well right? What stood out for both of those movies was how video-like and digital they looked, nothing cinematic to the picture and the colors were garbage. I'm guessing as with the discussion in some comments as well, that the Arris have that film feel, that creamy image everyone wants

So I can expect to read plenty of "XX company didn't include h.265 and it's been this long, still using h.264 the industry is going nowhere video shooters are in peril!!" from next year, because I have a feeling that it will take a while for any consumer cameras to include it... since the majority of users think h.264 footage looks great, it's the pros and anyone doing half-serious editing/grading that want the change. I was hoping from the initial news that this might just be a simple yet effective firmware update that can do this... agh, if only it were that easy, at least the 5D mark3 shoots RAW?

Perhaps the Df just came up as an idea 4 years ago, but was quickly abandoned as "rubbish" and only recently, say beginning of this year, they got back to concept after finally recognizing a market for one... and well, kind of like the Leica strategy, charging you more for less. Now there's no video (no live view as well right?) and it costs more than the D800, an arguably superior camera. So much for Nikon's supposed "we're here for the videographers" with the D800 video "Joyride" which nearly convinced me to go Nikon... now they don't even offer video on their latest camera! When of course, Canon hasn't done much more themselves, the 70D has the new on-sensor AF to help out, but the only real progress that has taken place over the last 4 years of HDSLR video is indeed with Hackers, the 5DII or any of the rebels wouldn't have gotten any more interest/use without Magic Lantern, and perhaps the GH3 wouldn't exist the way it does now with the array of video oriented controls and codecs if it weren't for the community of videographers that began idolizing the hacked GH2 and it's video splendor. Again, now with RAW enabled 5D3 and 7D things have shifted once more, and quite a lot, but I have to wonder how this article or even a lot of the other recent ones would have been written in a world without 5D3 RAW. Pretty much BM and Kine would be the only budget-friendly players in that field. I guess, aside from the possible increase in resolution for 4K support, seeing RAW in any DSLR natively isn't happening, what if the next 5DIV or 7DII would be built to work against ML and not allow RAW?? As more people get used to shooting in that, would anyone even consider abandoning it for a camera not capable? If of course, the codecs and bit rate are great and the resulting image quality and low light performance and unmatched... but it's hard to see that happening from Canon

I agree that getting a DSLR and using it soley for video is ridiculous... which, when I first got my Rebel for video purposes I decided it'd be great to get into photography seriously as well. And well now I'm making good money with portraiture, event and wedding photography. So for people like me, HDSLR is king, a 5D3 now does awesome video and is just as awesome with photos, best of both worlds in one package~

Yeah, right when Sony comes out with (finally) a mirrorless FF camera instead of just Leica... is this Nikon's "response"? Though I would have been all into this camera maybe 2 years ago, it's still too fat, with too much grip and way too many buttons for a retro camera design, and no video + insane price = haha you're joking right? I thought as technology improved aren't costs supposed to drop? Affordable FF cameras such as the 6D and D600 showed up and well, they're not the greatest but manufacturers are trying hard to not allow that price to drop to the point where everyone can afford FF it seems... Otherwise, those saying "who cares about video on a stills camera" get over yourself, ever since the D90 and 5DII that argument holds no ground what-so-evah! Today, it's natural to expect a camera to take video as well, why not, if I'm out and about for photos and there's something I really want to get some footage of, something that stills just won't do justice to, then do I whip out my phone to do it?? Majority of users prefer their smartphone because they can instantly share the footage to everyone, no one wants to bother with the ever so complicated post editing and encoding.... but of course, that's where the art is, in taking time and effort to making something, and if that's in practice then a smartphone won't do any justice. Today, a camera is a multi-functional tool, there is no such term as a "stills camera", maybe "stills oriented camera" for the overall purpose and design, and there will always be a differentiation between tools with purpose for video or photography, but it doesn't make sense anymore to be able to just take still photographs with a digital camera. Let's put it this way, if there was some way, however it may have been, for film cameras such as an FM2 to shoot motion pictures as well, would engineers back then have foregone that opportunity? Considering, if it worked of course, but really, isn't it amazing to be able to both now? Getting rid of video will do nothing to improve photos, if you don't mind getting rid of live view by changing the sensor design to something that will improve IQ, well, that isn't happening either, it'd be a pain to not have the ability now that we are all so used to it being available when, and maybe if we need it. Heck, even the new Leica M has video!! Doesn't that go against Leica tradition? Well, even they have a sensible side that understands what is desired in today's cameras

That is a good point about software limitations, also hardware with the lack of affordable and up to spec recorders/cards around (it'd be hard to get a good response for suggesting the super expensive Sandisk products, or even the cheap but potentially unreliable Komputerbay cards), and people in general just not having the fast guts in their computers to speak RAW without stuttering. Marketing RAW does seem like a difficult, if not bad decision to even the high end of consumers and enthusiasts. But of course, just make a ProRes shooting camera!! Blackmagic, thankfully, have pushed for that and have very good looking results. And GoPro is still cool and all but what I feel is if there isn't something real special to use it for then it's no more special then any other camera (with a fixed fisheye). All the uber-cool sports and action shots have been made that are hard to top, and looking at similar Contour, and how they just shut their doors and seemingly went out of business... though, it's hard to tell what's going on, maybe they're still alive I dunno. As for the topic here, cheapo DSLRs have no future because they've been the same circa 2009, right at the HDDSLR video revolution, everyone bought D90s and soon after even more T2is, and what's this? The sensor in the rebels are still the same? Nothing has really improved over the T2i expect a heftier price tag each time? Well no wonder I keep coming across users that are still stuck with that camera, they still use the kit lens and most haven't quite improved in their photo/video taking but even they understand there's no upgrade in that camera class, with higher end cameras being "unjustifiably expensive". And a lot of people have gotten their DSLR they wanted, whether brand new with a deal, or a recent-enough used model. There's no need to upgrade because to most people all DSLRs are just as good, more expensive ones are naturally "better" but only for "professionals", and easy to use lower models serve the purpose of being of good enough quality and also cool enough to let all of your neighbors know you're some pro photog. Though, lately all I see for lower end digital are Mirrorless ones from Oly or Panny, plenty of Oly DSLRs too, rarely a cheap Canikon DSLR now