dishe

Well, you didn't hype it up more than it deserves, but that doesn't mean other members of this forum didn't. I agree, its a very good overall package and I was mostly attracted to the price. My problem is what to do now, as I planned to sell one of my GH2s to balance out the purchase price of the G6. I had bought a second GH2 body because I do a lot of live event multi-cam projects (actually have one coming up this weekend), and I found it particularly annoying and time consuming trying to color match between the GH2 and other cameras. I figured the G6 is the GH2 sensor in an upgraded body, but the color rendition has clearly changed between the generations here. In fact, I think it has been improved, which is good. So, I guess the logical thing to do would be to sell BOTH Gh2's and buy myself another G6. ...but then there's the things the GH2 does better. It has live HDMI out while shooting as well as meters that stay on for the entire duration of recording (not to mention a much easier to access SD card door for swapping cards in a hurry). So now I'm starting to feel a bit of buyer's remorse, maybe I'm better off with the 2 GH2s that I have?

Yes, but it also comes back if I press the DISP button. The idea is to *leave it on screen* as I don't need an accidental camera shake in the middle of a speech I was hired to record! As far as the WiFi control- I agree that it is a super cool feature to have! But the transmission is the same standard definition VGA resolution that the camera's LCD has, so it doesn't really make it any easier to pull focus than the built in display. If it were a full screen HD image, that would be amazing (but also really unlikely considering the amount of CPU and bandwidth required to do that in real time). This however, is VGA resolution, and so far I haven't been able to make it full screen at that (it exists in a corner of my display, surrounded by buttons and UI controls), so I'd need a much larger display to benefit from it compared to the internal LCD. Speaking of which, the built in display does peaking, and I noticed that the WiFi monitoring app does not. So, the WiFi option, while extremely cool, might not help for the reasons many people use external monitors. Don't get me wrong, the function is extremely cool, especially at this price point, but it does not quite replace a real HDMI output. I was also recently asked to help out with a multi-cam live stream event, something I used to be able to do with my GH2's clean HDMI out option. I'm realizing that as cool as the G6 is, I might need to still hold on to my old camera as there are some needs it doesn't fill! Between this and the on-screen data that doesn't go away on a time out, the GH2 really seems better suited for those times I need to do camcorder-esque jobs, and the G6 perhaps better suited for film making ones. I do love the colors, 60p recordering, in-body peaking and WiFi function (even if it ends up being mostly used just to show off how cool my set up is). But the way some folks discuss it around here, I almost had unrealistic expectations.

Recently posted on another forum:

Right, but how do I keep the frame with data from timing out? It used to go black after a few minutes, and I could bring it back with the DSP button. Then I figured out how to keep the display alive (turn "sleep" to off), so it stays on but the data still times out after a few minutes. In other words, the recording starts off with live view + data (including audio meters, which is what I'm looking for here) and then after a few minutes the data disappears and only displays the live view. At least the screen stays on now, but I'd like the data to stay on as well! Yes, pressing DSP brings it back (as it did when the display went dark before as well), but I don't want to touch the camera while recording an event! Another option is to use the wireless monitor via my smartphone, but I'm concerned about stability and battery life of my smartphone if doing that for an extended amount of time. Also, apparently the audio meters don't appear on the WiFi remote monitor either!

Ok, its apparently just a Windows bug and I should ignore it. Footage is truly sharp and full HD in my editor. In fact, in Windows Media Player, if I click view at 50%, then 200%, then back to 100%, it seems to display at the correct 1080 HD size. Meanwhile, one other thing that is irking me- I intend to use this for long recordings at times, and currently the screen shuts off after an amount of time. I managed to find that setting in the menu to turn off, so now the display remains on. But the meters and live data disappear (audio levels, etc). I'd like to keep those up, as they do on my GH2. Can that be done? Where is the menu option for that?

^ agreed. I recently was researching this stuff and found myself discussing it with folks on Personal-View. Apparently, much of the housings are mass produced between manufacturers, but the glass that gets installed is not necessarily equal. Its a quality control issue, much like many things out of China that are mass produced on a budget. 2 products from different companies can look identical, but not necessarily perform the same. I saw tests from the "cheapo ebay" models on that forum, and they did not perform as well as the RJ. On a whim, I decided to use the contact form to shoot an email out to RJ, and it seems like I got a personal response from Rong Jin himself. He was actually extremely informative and helpful, we started discussing coatings and quality of the glass, and it was pretty clear to me that this is a guy who takes pride in his product. I do believe he puts in a better quality glass element than the others.

Great tip on matching cameras, I'll give it a try later. As far as my "settings in Windows", I'm not sure what you mean. There aren't any settings for that sort of thing that I'm aware of. Windows explorer merely reports the file details as it sees them, its the sort of thing you'd find if you hit "properties" on the file (for example, click a word document and it will tell you how large it is, when it was last modified, etc. A music file will list the ID3 tag information for artist and track name, etc). It says that these are AVCHD files, at 24 fps, with a resolution of 720 x 480. There aren't any settings to adjust anywhere, I have no idea where it is getting those numbers from, but clicking to open and play in the default player (which happens to be Windows Media Player usually) sure enough goes ahead and opens a standard-definition sized window for playback. The odd thing is that I have a card with both GH2 and G6 footage right now, and when viewing the contents of the "private" folder, the GH2 footage is recognized as full HD 1920 x 1080 and the G6 footage (in the same directly, just one filename over) thinks it is 720 x 480. So there is something strange about how the G6 is encoding here. I found at least 2 people who mentioned it over at Personal-View, but they just ignore it because when it matters (opening in editors like Premiere), it is recognized and opened as an HD file. It just seems weird that Windows 7 explorer and media player, heck anything Microsoft (I'm guessing movie maker too, but I never touch that stuff), does not. I wonder why? I wonder where else this weird bug might crop up? I know some of those fancy GPU accelerated batch encode applications rely on Microsoft Direct X controls. I wonder if they'd have a problem with this? Its OK. I'm using very sharp lenses, that's not the problem. I've used peaking on a Marshall monitor, and even the in-body peaking from Sony's NEX series seems to work on more surfaces than this does. It only seems to grab solid line objects (walls, bricks, fences, etc). But a soft object like someone's face won't set it off. I noticed a few times that I could get peaking to show up easily on something directly in front of or behind a person, but not on the actual person themselves. Also a soft object like a blanket or tarp in my garage I was trying to focus on, just failed miserably. Oh well, its still a very cool feature to have when it works! Just not something I would rely on solely.

Of course you should have lights- that's not the problem. Part of the point of the large-sensor look is being able to separate your subject from the background. Part of that is achieved by creative lighting (contrasting), and the other is with DOF (wide apertures). There is a balance, as maxotics mentioned, where you don't want to go TOO wide that your subject drifts in and out of focus, but saying you should shoot at f/5.6 in the average indoor interview environment sounds more unprofessional than showing up without lights IMO! I usually use a lowel kit consisting of 3 lights with diffusers and reflectors. Still, my favorite interview lens is a 50mm F/1.4 and I stop it down to about f/2.8 to give a nice separation from the background. If that isn't possible or there is too much light, I'll place the camera farther away and use an 85mm instead. I just can't imagine trying to do this with that slow kit and getting results I am happy with. Then again, to each their own and if that's working for you, keep doing it! I just can't imagine how it could work. Can you share an example perhaps?

has anyone else noticed the standard-def thing?

Andy- I have it. Its sharp enough, but that's NOT what the OP is asking about. They want something suited for indoor interview situations, and the kit, while being pretty sharp for a kit, is not fast enough to be well suited. At 42mm (since you don't go wide on an interview), it only opens up to f/5.6, which I don't need to tell you pretty much stinks. I'd never go smaller than an f/2.8 in that sort of situation, and even on the widest end it only opens up to 3.5. If you think this kit is an ideal interview lens, I think you're kidding yourself!

This makes me LOL- This is the first time I've ever seen someone ask for a more affordable B-cam to a G6! The G6 usually comes up in conversation as an affordable B-cam to something like a GH3. I really don't think you're going to find anything cheaper in this class of performance, as it already *IS* the recommended B-cam! :)

If audio is important, I would highly recommend a system that can not only record high quality audio, but allow you to monitor it as well. I don't think either of the cameras mentioned above do that, so your best bet is to buy an external audio recorder and sync it up either way. As far as kit lenses- there isn't a camera on the market currently that has a kit lens I'd recommend for indoor use. No matter what you'll probably want to invest in a prime lens. Since the G6 is the more affordable option, I'd recommend that combined with a decent lav mic and a Zoom or Tascam recorder. If you really want, you can split the audio signal and feed it in to the camera as well as the recorder, and then just use the recorder as a backup. The point is you can wear headphones and be aware of what is being recorded in real time, which is *crucial*.

Got my G6 (was a delay in getting it), so far really pleased with it. Peaking isn't foolproof and doesn't always work the way I'd like it to, but it is still better than none at all. The colors are rich and render better than the GH2's in my opinion, and the build quality is better than I expected (quite a few folks warned me that the build was "cheap", but perhaps that is just compared to a weather sealed GH3! It doesn't seem any worse of a build than a Canon Rebel or similar class camera). A couple of questions: 1) Why does the resulting AVCHD media report to windows that it is a 720x480 resolution file when the camera was set to full HD? If I preview with Windows Media Player, it opens up a standard-def sized window and plays. I almost had a heart attack because I was trying to recording 1080 24p! Sure enough, when I open it in an NLE or VLC, it reports and plays a 1920x1080 sized video, but why does Windows see and play something different? GH2 and GH1 media are all correctly reported and played at full 1080p, it makes me wonder if the G6 media isn't really HD and just sits in such a container! I mean, why does WMP only play a 480p version? Where did the rest of the resolution go? Is it down scaling, or is that all the data it actually sees in the file? (If it is down scaling and therefore knows there is more resolution, why doesn't it display it?) 2) What is the best way to match color between the GH2 and a G6? I was going to replace one of my GH2s with this, but now I'm thinking for multi-camera work I should keep both GH2s so they match perfectly. The color seems pretty different on the G6. Is there a magic combo that makes them look more-or-less similar?

Sold. I ordered a G6 this morning. Should get here next week. Wondering what you mean by only the "obnoxious pixel peepers will be able to tell me otherwise"- What does this camera do that a pixel peeper does not approve of? The GH2 impressed peepers because of its rich detail, but sort of falls short when it comes to coloring and noise at times. The non-pixel peepers, however, seemed to prefer larger sensor cameras because of the shallow DOF. It was the peepers that liked the Lumix footage, so I'm wondering what the peepers don't like here?

Ok, so the RJ sounds decent enough, I went and ordered two (an EOS and FD mount). G6 sounds like it will likely do what I want as well, but I'm still on the fence about that one.

Ok, so back on topic- 1) GX7 or G6? 2) Does G6 have comparable sound to GH2 (so far it sounds like probably) 3) Lens Turbo or other Speedbooster clone, worthwhile? Skip it? Save up for real thing? And new question: 4) RJ Lens adapters, are they only sold from Hong Kong? I'd like to try one out but don't want to deal with waiting for weeks on shipping from China. I heard there are rebranded versions on Amazon, which would be great for me here in the US. Anyone know?

I know... I wish there was a Sony E mount camera in this price range that had comparable video quality. But alas, my options above are what they are. I've used my GH2s for music videos and the audio recorded by the camera's internal mic was also rather good- we even used it at the end of one of our videos during a credit roll, it was a cool sort of "unplugged" version of the song. But that's not what I'm talking about- I need a mic input for interviews and location sound. No matter how good the internals might get, that's not what I'm looking for. If I go GX7, I'll have to go fully external sound again, which is annoying.

I've been on the fence regarding trading in one of my GH2s for a long time now. The GH3 seems like it has nice color, but I like the idea of focus peaking and the wireless control of the newer models. A GH4 seems like overkill to me (and out of my price range anyway), so I'm considering the G6 and the GX7. Here's my dilemma: I sometimes record sound directly into the GH2 (when travelling super light, for example at event expos). I know the GX7 lacks a mic jack, so that's probably not really an option, but is the sound on the G6 as good as the GH2? The GH2 was surprisingly solid at audio, very quiet pre-amps and a limiter to prevent crackle/peaking. I used to split the line and record into an external recorder just in case the camera wasn't good, but usually the in-camera audio was fine enough that I didn't bother syncing it up. I want to make sure the G6 is just as good- is it? I've also heard that the GX7's video performance is surprisingly good. Is it noticeably better than the G6? Even though the GX7 lacks an audio input, swivel LCD (which is nice, but not necessarily a dealbreaker), and is actually more expensive than a G6, is the video quality solid enough to be worth it anyway? And finally, I really don't like the idea of an even deeper crop- coming from s35/APS-C cameras, the GH2 was a tough enough pill to swallow, but at least it was wider than other M43 sensors. If I just to a G6/X7, I'm going to be working in a full-on 2x crop. So I'm considering getting a focal reducer to go along with it. So, I've been eyeing a Metabones Speedbooster, but if I'm dropping money on a camera body I don't think I could handle a $400 adapter on top of it as well. What's the deal with these RJ Lens Turbos? I remember the focal reducer from Fotodiox was terrible, and I was under the impression that only only the Metabones version was worth using. But I'm hearing now that the RJ version for $130 is pretty darned good. So right now, I guess I'm thinking a G6 + a lens turbo would be a decent upgrade to what I'm using now (GH2 + pass through adapters)? What do you guys think? Pros and cons of this idea, something I might have missed or not considering? Don't hold back, give it to me straight, guys!

That's a rather accurate albeit confusing explanation. OP, you're probably wondering why there are different sizes of 35mm, right? Basically, the film stock was 35mm in both situations, however a photography camera loaded the film horizontally, with the frames advanced with a top-loaded lever or wheel, whereas a film camera loaded the film vertically through the shutter. There are various reasons why it made more sense to do this, but they aren't important. The point is, the FOV seen by a movie camera shooting super-35mm film stock was different from a photograph. Because it was loaded sideways, the aspect ratio was different and the frame was reduced by a 1.5x crop. In the photography world, this is roughly the view of an APS-C crop camera (1.6x). This is why we have a royal mess of reference numbers these days. In the film and movie industry, traditionally people used to compare everything to s35mm film cameras because that is the standard. When a cinematographer is choosing a lens for a s16 shot or a 2/3" digital camera, they are thinking in terms of sideways-loaded 35mm cinema camera FOV. But in photography, that 35mm FOV is already considered a crop, as their reference point is much wider. This confusion really took over during the DSLR revolution. People were buying SLR lenses for crop cameras that were rated in full frame 35mm photography equivalents. When buying a micro4/3 25mm lens, the literature says it is a 50mm full-frame equivalent. Instead of trying to always make a distinction between photography and movies, I think most of us have just resigned and accepted comparing it to photography when we describe crops and FOV.

Sounds like the Panasonic crowd is a mixed bag these days- not everyone went from the GH2 to the GH3, with an awful lot of product fragmentation now (G6, GX7, and Andrew, you yourself mentioned that the GM1 had better video!). Seems like perhaps a more generic "Panasonic 2013 m4/3 shooter's guide" would be a hot seller! Speaking of which, I still stand behind my suggestion months ago regarding a non-raw shootout. I still haven't decided which way is worth going from my GH2, and I'm leaning more and more away from the GH3 because of the feature set of the newer models (peaking, using remote device as wireless monitor, etc), but at the same time it seems like the GH3 is the "standard" that everyone assumes the logical next step. Heck, the GH3 was the cam that competed with the RAW 5D and BMPCC in your own shootout, not the G6 or any other modern Panny. :/

The OMD can only do 60 fps interlaced (does not do 60p). Not all codecs are created equal, and not all video modes despite using the same sensor. The colors are rendered beautifully on both due to the superb sensor from what I've seen and heard, but when it comes to video modes, Olympus seems to not be able to deliver pro-level quality. Andrew did some tests when he got his OM-D a while back, I remember. I was excited about the the in body stabilization, but it turns out the video was not so hot. You can find his review somewhere here- he basically concluded that it took great pictures but pretty lousy video compared to other cameras in the price range. In a nutshell- if you want this for video recording, I'd definitely pick the GH3 over the OM-D.

  I'm not asking anyone to make my decision for me - I don't work like that.  What I'm asking for, however, is more opinions from people who chose one over the other and why. Maybe some experiences- what irked someone about one that made them go for the other and vice versa. Andy has made his position abundantly clear (all over this forum, apparently!)- he loves the G6 and explained why. He feels that for his needs, it is superior to a GH3. It is unclear if he ever considered a Nikon or any other camera body, but why would he if he is happy with what he has and it is working for him. His needs may be different than mine, and while we may not see eye-to-eye on what is important in a camera body, I very much appreciate that he took the time to share his experience and opinion.    But he is just one person. I guess I was sort of hoping for some back-and-forth discussion here, or at the very least a chime in from someone who's opinions and standards are well established, like Andrew (why I came to this forum in the first place, rather than ask this on any myriad of other camera forums).

  Yep, I heard.  Doesn't really change things as far as I'm concerned- I know price is one of the reasons some folks went with a G6 over other options, but I'd like to know if people still feel that way if price weren't that different anymore. Seemed like an opportunity to hear more opinions about which camera would be preferable over which, and why.  I mean aside from Andy. His opinion is quite well known around here- LOL!

  I don't understand, are you trying to make my decisions harder or easier? ;) Gh3 is a great deal for the money. G6 is not a whole lot different. But it has peaking and cleaner moire/aliasing. GH3 has audio and higher bitrates and build quality. G6 is compatible with my GH2 accessories (batteries, etc). GH3 has more wide spread support (popularity, other accessories, etc).    ::head explosion::      Andrew, we need a Non-RAW shootout! D5200, G6, GH3, heck throw in some Sony RX and whatever you have laying around that takes good quality without a crazy workflow and and unmanageable amounts of storage!

Ok, so here's a new factor to take into consideration:   The GH3 is $799 right now at UniquePhoto: http://www.uniquephoto.com/product/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh3-mirrorless-digital-camerablackdmc-gh3/   This puts it practically head-to-head with the G6 on price, which makes the whole "and all this for less money" no longer a no-brainer. Its down to feature-for-feature, which is more desirable:  GH3 - built in audio monitoring, better codec and bitrates, HDMI out, more dynamic range and better build quality vs G6 - better resolution (less moire and aliasing), focus peaking, remote control and live streaming with wifi app (last I checked, the GH3 didn't support live streaming when recording)   Price difference isn't much of a factor anymore.