dishe

Yeah, g6 style is what I'm thinking - but with a higher price tag and without the mic jack. If you want the camera anyway for stills or something (It's actually a pretty cool looking body if you ask me), and you're cool syncing up an external recorder to the built in mic for sound, it looks pretty decent. But if you want it just for video, I don't see it as very appealing.

So far, it seems like a cooler and more expensive G6 without audio inputs. Which is kind of meh- they say its a new sensor, and that articulating EVF is kind of cool for guerrilla-style video, but I think for the price its almost GH3-territory. And I get the feeling the GH3 has more DR, better codecs, and full audio in / out. At least, that's my take on it. I haven't seen many opinions on video with it, and I'm guessing its because most people who are looking for video are concluding the same thing I am. So unless someone tries it and proves differently... ::shrug::

I'm still waiting for a proper shootout comparing the D5200, G6, GH3, and other non-RAW shooters for the rest of us. They all seem like great options, honestly, but I'm going to stick with my GH2 until I can definitively say which is best for what I'd like to shoot. Hard to find an unbiased opinion around here. :)   Maybe if we all nudge/ask Andrew nicely at the same time? heh

Adapters won't introduce distortion or lost IQ, since they just sit and hold the lens at the correct distance from the sensor. The only time you effect image quality is by introducing something in between the lens and the sensor, which on other types of camera mounts is necessary in order to reach infinity focus with an FD lens (since the distance between the film and lens was designed to be shorter on an FD that most modern camera mounts, throwing it on an adapter means you are sitting farther away from the sensor than it was engineered to focus with). However since mFT is mirrorless, the sensor sits right up against the glass without a mirror or pentaprism in between. That means there is room to have a regular dumb ring adapter without any glass to correct focus distance, just like any other camera mount (such as Nikon to EOS, which is very common for example). Meanwhile, Andy, I want to see some shots of your C-mount you keep raving about!

Ok, I'm just going to throw this out there, although I recognize how irrelevant what I want personally is, in the grand scheme of Panasonic's new products.    I don't really give a $%#! about 4k, but I do care about rolling shutter. I'd like a really good 1080p camera that gives a decent 10 bit picture (at least) and IBIS.  ND filter is nice, 4K is nice- heck, even XLR for single system audio, but I'd gladly give all of those up for a nice large chip global shutter in an affordable DSLR-size body. But hey, what I want isn't necessarily what will sell for Panny.

  True, but don't forget this thing has peaking built into the body. The desire for an external screen is more for director/producer monitors, and other off-camera monitoring. Also, I want to see the framing and composition on a larger screen, and the ability to tap focus with an AF lens is extraordinary!

  Just occurred to me that perhaps the opposite would be true. The camera guts max out processing a certain amount of throughput and recording bandwidth, right? So perhaps the processor can handle 10-bit 1080p at 60fps, and is also capable of 4k resolution albeit at 8-bit and only 30fps. 

Sounds like more opinions, man.   I remember the first time I saw the team from BBC America covering the Dr. Who premiere in NY a couple of years ago... they wanted to get footage of the event for a promo spot, it was a 2-man team. One guy had a wind-screened boom mic and hip recorder, the other had what appeared to be a 5D on a light shoulder rig. Grabbed some footage and answers to questions, in and out with the crowd, and left. Since then, I've noticed less and less full-sized cameras at similar events, even weddings. I think it safe to say that perhaps YOU DO'T KNOW WHAT SOMEONE ELSE'S DREAM CAMERA IS, so your opinions are just that- opinions.      You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. Are there some limitations? Sure. Are they drastic? Heck no, or else we wouldn't be using them, and looking for new ones to use as well! The workflow is different from my ENG days, that's for sure. But its not harder, just different. And I've been much happier with the picture quality, and have no intention of going back anytime soon.     Ok, we agree! That's why I'm not looking at RAW cameras! Fact of the matter is, not everyone shooting with these hybrids are strictly using them for film making. Remember the DVX100? That camera was a smash hit for both film makers and documentarians. There's often more than one camp of users for a particular product, but here one side of this group is looking down on the other and saying this equipment isn't for us. Which, quite frankly, is weird.    Good thing I don't really find myself flipping through menus, then! I don't own a GH3, but on the GH2 I have shortcuts assigned to the function buttons, and manual aperture control on the lens. Only buttons I need to press is to change ISO, which really doesn't change much once the session begins. But sure, continue to tell me what works and what doesn't for me.   :)   The GH2's preamp shared the same specs and noise floor as the HMC-150. There have been some pretty interesting tests on that. They likely just used the same chip for mass-production, which means- yes, the GH2's audio is actually quite good. But you wouldn't know that, because most people just assume it isn't and don't bother trying it. The problem is that there wasn't a way to monitor it, so even if the preamp quality and noise range is good, I wouldn't trust it for a production. That's why I generally have dual system audio. But if the GH3's is even close to the same specs, and offers a way to monitor on the body- yes, why not?    Guilty admission: One of my first DSLR gigs was recording an interview for a talkshow on network television. There was a problem with my recorder, but Magic Lantern had just come out with audio monitoring for Canon DSLRs. In a pinch, I hooked it up and went with it. I turned the camera's preamps down to zero, and fed as hot of a pre-amplified audio into the camera as I could (using sennheiser wireless lav system and adjusting the AF out level) so it was just under red-lining and peaking, that way I could avoid the camera's weak amp as much as possible. I just hoped for the best. In-camera audio from a Canon DSLR (which has admittedly the lowest quality preamps of any video-enabled camera I've ever seen). I was really nervous it would come out like garbage. But you know what? It didn't. They accepted and aired the clip.  Since that moment, I've been very skeptical about those who say what you can and can't do- what's good enough and what isn't. A lot of people like to be snobs about things they haven't actually tried doing. You just assume the audio can't be good enough because logically any small camera without XLR inputs MUST be subpar, right?? ::rolls eyes::     What I don't miss, is running the tape through a firewire deck and waiting for it to transfer in real time. Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to that as logging. My mistake. Either way, a DSLR workflow in post is FAR simpler than those days, but we didn't complain about the tedious steps back then- why start now? How spoiled are we?       Sorry- I didn't mean to start an NLE debate. Its just that I've never needed to transcode anything to anything on this job, and I've been doing it since before DV tapes were standard. That's something I regularly hear my colleagues working with FCP 7 complaining about, and it was an unfair assumption that everyone needs to transcode as part of their workflow. If people like FCPX and don't find that they need to perform extra steps, power to them! I'm a big fan of being platform agnostic- whatever works for you, go with it!  If you find that you prefer to use a different camera because the footage out of your camera doesn't play nicely with your NLE, than I might consider switching to a more friendly NLE without such limitations. Otherwise, the more the merrier!   I hear you. I don't see many people saying the 8 bit 4:2:0 is BETTER- rather, I see people saying the RAW workflow isn't worth the extra effort. I think everyone agrees that if everything else was the same, 12 bit RAW has more color information and lattitude, I mean its just simple mathematics. But like that guy on the previous page who is the producer of a Discovery TV show, sometimes it isn't worth all that effort and work in post to get something that arguably may not look any different to the audience at the end of the day.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c[/media]     Transcoding? Who is transcoding AVCHD footage?! Are you one of those Final Cut fanboys who assumes everyone else is also using it? Any *other* modern editor (Edius, Premiere, Vegas, etc) lets you drag clips right off the memory card into a timeline and start editing. AVCHD, even at higher bitrates, cut like butter on platforms designed to handle it properly. It couldn't be any easier! To get some perspective, it wasn't too long ago that we were all shooting on DV tape and had to log footage in real time before even starting the editing process. The workflow here is FAR more efficient, pop in the card and go to town. Couldn't be any simpler! The only extra steps involved being the occasional stitching together of spanned files from long recording, and running plural eyes for external audio (I've been guilty of using the camera's audio input when traveling light, though!). Otherwise, the post process is a major step forward from the DV tape and P2 cards of yesteryear.  Ready to start cutting in less time than it took back then. Meanwhile, I moved on from ENG cameras to Canon DSLRs and finally Panasonics. After using GH2's for both narrative and event work for quite some time, I can comfortably say the workflow has become second nature. The GH3 will only make that EASIER, since the audio monitoring option means I can rely more on the camera's built in audio rather than an external recorder. Combine that with a good constant aperture lens and OIS (which even throws in the occasional autofocus when helpful) and I really can't imagine a much simpler workflow!    That being said, the fact that the GH3 can offer such a great workflow for the deadline projects and still be considered part of this shootout speaks volumes for its versatility. I'm half way to buying one after this conversation! But I can't help but wonder how similar cameras fare- Does the G6 have comparable DR? And the D5200? What about the RX7? And the Sonys? We want a non-Raw shootout!!

Yes and no. There's no way you should expect anything decent to come out of any camera's microphone. That being said, many argue that the weak preamps commonly found in DSLR sized bodies aren't worth using either way- and the only way around this is to shoot with an external audio recorder (zoom, tascam, etc) which you can then sync up with the camera's audio in post.    It happens to be that the GH2 had decent preamps compared to other small camera bodies, and the GH3 even offers a headphone jack to monitor the quality (the first of their lineup to do that). But even still, I find myself relying on my Tascam for audio since I have more control and it is just more reliable.   There have been times I routed audio directly into the camera when travelling light, but I'd be fine with the GX7 because I don't think I'd miss the jack so terribly much.

  Something to consider about 4k- when you down size it to a smaller comp (ie, 1080p, etc), you are starting off with more information per pixel than shooting 1080p native. Especially with advanced NLEs that allow sub-pixel processing, you are going to have a clearer, cleaner image with more color information per pixel in the final result.    Sure, all I really want is better 1080p. But if I can't have that anytime soon from a Panasonic body, I'll take higher definition that I can then MAKE into a better 1080p. Either way it's a win... however it unfortunately won't help much with dynamic range.

Agreed. Now, can we move on and get a shootout for the non-RAW workflow folks?? Pretty please?? :D

  Not necessarily. Its less behind-the-scenes and more documentary. There need to be some production value- in fact, part of how I get jobs like these is that my run-and-gun stuff looked better and more dramatic than most people using small-chip cameras or Canon DSLR's with their messy image problems. They want the stuff to look pro-level, but I'm not going to need to do heavy film grading or anything like that. You say none of the workflows are acceptable, and I point to the GH3. That camera does a great job out of the box, no RAW workflow or anything like that, and its the only option out of the cameras mentioned in this test that I think would work for those in the same boat as me.    But there are others to consider as well- such as the G6, D5200 (especially since you can externally record 4:2:2 when necessary), and the new GX7 is stealthy with that new articulating viewfinder (not LCD, VIEWFINDER!) while offering similar colors to a GH3 in body... there's a whole market of folks who want high quality images for events, weddings, PR pieces, etc. We want the highest quality images possible without mucking up the workflow with RAW grading. And I don't see any reason this isn't possible and shouldn't be discussed. Somebody back me up here!

  I've heard that it only happens on the GH2, because your FOV is wider than the average mFT sensor. The coverage of a speedbooster with a regular mFT mount isn't that far off from APS-C. But don't take my word for it, I'd love to hear a confirmation from someone who's tried.

  Thanks Andrew! 

  No no, that's a given. Panasonic sells the DCC8 coupler as part of their AC power adapter, as I mentioned above. The GH1 actually came with one in the box, and most of their cameras have a little door on the side of the battery compartment to let the cable fish out from.    The problem is that they try to make it proprietary by using not only a less common plug size, but they actually swapped the polarity of the positive and negative from the usual layout (positive is almost ALWAYS in the middle). So even if you find a battery or AC adapter with a plug that fits, if you feed it 9v in the reverse polarity you could damage the sensitive electronics inside. There were quite a few members of a thread on DVXUser exploring these options that had to send in their cameras for repair.    Be careful!

  Agreed! Andrew- what can we do to make this happen?? :)

  Probably in landscape orientation. This is a big deal to me- I can't believe people this isn't a talking point!

I'm just going to go ahead and ignore Stefy's SPAM posting all over the forum for a moment and share something I didn't know 10 minutes ago-   Yes, HDMI out is disabled, but LIVE STREAMING to a Wifi or NFC device during recording works! This is something I recall the GH3 wouldn't do! You can even touch the screen to pull focus on your phone/tablet if the camera is out of reach. While recording.    I have to see more tests to check how bad the latency might be, but this could be a workable alternative to having a real HDMI for monitoring off camera. There are quite a few phones/tablets with HDMI out as well, if the device's screen still isn't good enough!

Well, that might be a problem unless you can figure out a way to repeat the Wifi signal or intercept the NFC one if you are concerned about 2.4Ghz. That's a lot of distance.    But for everyone else- holy cow, this is a glimmer of light at the end of a tunnel! IT DOES continue streaming while recording! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3a1_vszeAU[/media]

  What about using the remote viewing feature with a mobile app? In one of the video demonstrations, it looks like the guy was able to control the focus with his Samsung android device, using clicks on the screen to pull focus. Perhaps this one can do live streaming during recording unlike the GH3?

Lots of good points back and forth here- but what about folks who want the best non-RAW camera for news/event gigs?  I love the cinematic look as much as the next guy, but when I interned for a news team, faster workflow always won over better image quality.    I was recently offered a position in a company to handle video-PR for them- ie, make little promotional clips about what they are doing lately, sometimes record events and lectures. Its a mix of creative work and live event work. I'm trying to figure out which camera would be a worthy upgrade from my GH2 I currently use, so I was excited to see this test. But clearly a hacked 5Dm3 is overkill with a workflow not conducive to what I'm trying to do, and I sort of feel the same way about anything from black magic.    So, for us shooters who are not interested in RAW, where's *our* shootout, Andrew? ;)   Can we get a D5200 vs G6 vs GH3 vs whatever shootout? A non-RAW test, if you will.    I'm sure I'm not the only one interested in that!

Fair enough!    Also, to be fair, I didn't mean to say that mathematically the average of 4:2:0 exactly equals true 4:4:4. There's no way to accurately calculate that, really. All I'm saying is that the jagged doubled-up-pixels you get on edges with 4:2:0 aren't there anymore once you downsample. Since that initial loss of resolution/edge definition is the reason shooting 4:2:0 is detrimental to pulling a key, I'm saying that it really won't matter that much what color sampling method you shot it in once you are scaling it down anyway, in this reference at least.   I hope we can at least agree on that!

  Figured as much. But you tried to use it as an example of how great a key you pulled from a 5D. I didn't say the fact that it was 480p is your fault! I'm just saying that link isn't a good example because it was lower resolution, not to mention the style of video doesn't require it to be as perfect of a key to be realistic.   LOL- You crack me up, Andy. Between you and me, bragging about one's experience to gain notoriety on the internet often does the opposite of its intended function. With all due respect, I may be new to this forum but you have no idea who I am or what I've done. I'll say this much: Don't be so sure you are the only person in this thread who's work has appeared on television.    Someone was asking what the cheapest camera for "perfect" green screen was. You made a good recommendation for an all-around great camera on a budget. But you keep acting like the question was aimed only at you, and if anyone else voices their opinion it must somehow be a personal battle against you and your reputation!  You made a great point- you don't always need 4:4:4 to pull a good key. We all agreed with you- heck, even I did! I've pulled plenty of 4:2:0 keys that were good enough for what I was doing. But would a different camera have done a better job? Yes, I still think it would. And if I were buying a camera exclusively for green screen work, I'd look for at least something that records 4:2:2, like an HMC-150. Being that the OP specified his budget is around $4k, there are plenty of cameras that shoot a lot more than 4:2:0 and DON'T require a RAW workflow. Many of them shoot AVCHD or Prores natively. No reason to compromise.  He asked for ideas. We are giving him ideas. Yours is just as valid as everyone elses, IMO, so let's all just get along K? ;)

  You misunderstand- The video posted above is presented here at 480p maximum resolution. Aside from that, the video moves very fast and is chock full of composited effects and CG. This is hardly an example of the ability to get a clean key out of a 4:2:0 image- a bad key out of that 5D he used would be pretty much indistinguishable in this sort of situation. As I said before, if you told me that image came out of an iPhone4, I doubt the end result would look much different. ...and that's sort of what we're saying all along. A 4:2:0 camera may be harder to pull a good key than a 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 one, however you don't always need the cleanest key in every project. For a video like Andy's example, it works just fine. But "fine" isn't "perfect". Fine is adequate, fine works. Fine isn't best... its just fine.   Haha, you say that with such conviction! Unfortunately, I'm not sure what universe you are referencing with this data. Anyone with experience in post production (or heck, even basic photoshop!) knows that sampling down the image REDUCES noise and jagged edges. One of the advantages of shooting higher resolution than your target delivery format (4k down to 1080p, for example), aside from being able to reframe your shot, you can reduce the image size and remove noise and artifacts. Unless you are using poor bi-cubic resampling, jagged edges will smooth out and become more defined.  I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that perhaps we aren't talking about the same thing- so I'll illustrate visually to help you out.  Here's that picture from the Wikipedia link above discussing color sampling: Here is the 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 version side by side, showing only the color resolution: I cropped out a portion in the middle to make sure the browser won't resize the image. Quite a difference side by side here. Clearly the 4:2:2 version is going to create a messier key, with blocky edges and artifacts compared to a 4:4:4 picture.  But, what happens when we shrink the image down to 30% of the original size? See how the blocky edges and artifacts are virtually non-existent now? A key pulled on an image shrunken down like this is going to have much more defined edges than the full 100% sized one will! In fact, let's compare it to the original 4:4:4 image resized to 30%: The one on the left is the 4:2:2 image, the right a 4:4:4 one. Yes, the one on the right is still a tad sharper than the one on the left, but the difference when pulling a key is minuscule compared to the full sized one above. Jagged edges are gone, noise reduced and shapes are more consistent. Also something to take into consideration is the fact that Photoshop's ability to sub-pixel resample (which is what is used to shrink that image down) is capable of a cleaner resample vs what the camera samples off the sensor. So, an image actually shot at that size on a 4:4:4 sample would probably be slightly less sharp, and look more-or-less like the image on the left.  Therefore, I stand behind my statement (and the statement of others on other forums- I didn't make up this theory), that a downsampled 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 image can be virtually indistinguishable from a native untouched 4:4:4 of the same size when it comes to grading and pulling a key.    That's something else entirely. You're talking about frequency patterns, I think.