fuzzynormal

Here's a Quick review from someone that owns a GX7, EM5II, GX85 and likes to shoot with manual lenses. The GX85 has great IQ. Love the 4k and the colors are an improvement. Ergos stink. The EVF is a mess and, for lack of a better word, "terrible." I would have thought it couldn't be any worse than the GX7, and I was right. Unfortunately, it's the same. Yikes. On the EM5II, the EVF is so clear and clean that a user can actually use it to find manual focus. It's not viable on my LUMIX cams, and to step backwards from that luxury is a shame. The body grip of the GX85 is not comfortable (or reassuring in one's hand) and it's actually worse than the GX7 in that regard. However, exposure controls are easily accessed and exposure monitoring is impressive. This end-user ergos might not matter to you if you're not shooting a ton of footage, but once you try to get through full day shoots while handholding the GX85, it's something to seriously consider. For now, the GX85 IQ is so superior to a camera like the EM5II, that it's a worthwhile tradeoff. But, since the egos are so much better and nicer in the EM5II, at this point I would not hesitate to return to an Olympus camera once they finally adopt 4K. *sigh* it's never perfect, eh?

How would one use the audio from the GX85 regardless? It's bad audio. Good only for a scratch track to guide the sync process in post-production. The only way to get good audio for any production, from your backyard home movies to the highest level film productions, is to get a mic near your subject. This is fundamental. I'm frankly a little surprised that there are people out there that would consider buying and owning loads of production gear to create impressive IQ, but then mount some mic to a camera hot shoe and think that was appropriate...for almost anything at all beside rough ambient noise/room tone. Yet, all you have to do is watch a few vlogger youtube videos to see this ignorance. I find it quite staggering because it's so ridiculously obvious a problem to solve. A crappy mic in the proper place will be better than the most expensive mic in the world set up in the wrong place. Audio is NOT Video. You can't buy your way into an easy solution. You want better IQ on your images? A better camera/lens can do the trick. You want better audio? You better know how sound vibrations actually work --and know how to use that to your advantage.

It's a practical camera with great user egos and is still a good value, IMHO. Clean, not great, image. Caveats: It's a larger footprint camera. For some doc subjects/situations these can be a problem as it "looks" like a pro camera and people behave around it as such...and authority figures react to it as such. Getting a shakedown from some local security guard while traveling is never fun. The highlights roll off like a video camera. It doesn't have that film gamma curve. You can compensate by manually adjusting your knee settings and that'll help. For the type of doc stuff I'm involved in, using consumer mirrorless cameras has been really great and I wouldn't switch back to a "real" camera, (even though I'd really appreciate the XLR/ND/ergos) --but only because my stuff has been and continues to be a rather specific style/technique. If I was doing more in-town-corporate stuff right now I think I'd do what you're doing. Buy a used one of these and work it like crazy. For only 1K-ish, it's not a risky investment.

I recognize a bit of rationalization there to try and talk ones self into a purchase. amiright? ;-). Been there.

I can testify that the FUJI footage needs at least a basic color grade...but there's lots of info in the darks and it "lifts" up just fine. --and that's about it. The colors have been looking pretty good to my eye.

Since I need to have two edit stations, I just can't afford two well-spec'd Macs. Sorry Apple. Gotta go. I know you won't miss me, but I'll miss you. Time to assemble...

In my experience, cheap Chinese speed boosters can struggle with QC. You may find that shorter lenses mounted to a "dumb" speedbooster will not focus to infinity because the build is slightly off. I can't mount a 24mm to mine and make it work, for instance. I've read on a forum or two that Metabones suffers from a reputation of questionable QC as well. Since I heard that on the internet it must be true.

I saw in the marketing that it's: "4K enabled for video capture" Thank god for that! It sure is funny how light behaves when it knows it's being captured at 4K resolutions... More impressive is how Pany has enabled it's lens to deal with those curious photons that apparently can change their behavior. Thats some quantum physics science-y level sheit right there. Good thing the Japanese and Germans are on it. Good design and good ergonomics should be part of the same coin. Minimalism is okay when it's functional... It's very very difficult to design something to be simple but also practical. I own the gx85 and a Em5II. I'd RATHER shoot with the Oly; not that the Panasonic can't do the job, it just doesn't do it, for me, as easily and comfortably as the EM5II does it. That said, I now shoot more with the GX85 because it's technically superior. However... Does one actually get better shots with a camera they love using, even if it's inferior?? Theres harmony to all this stuff. Sometimes when you hear that harmony, everything grooves together and it can be a lot of fun. And I know I'm more creative when I'm having fun.

Record some sky gradients at magic hour and then see what you see on playback...

Don't we all ;-)

You tried to use a H1 as a mic to record audio while it was on the camera? For example, you filmed someone talking from 10 feet across the room and the H1 mic was on the GX85? FWIW, it almost always worthless to record audio from the camera. It's almost irrelevant how high-fidelity and professional a microphone would be. If a mic is not placed in the right spot, pointed the right direction, it'll just sound lousy.

Wonderful insight. Thanks!

Fair enough. I'm not an event shooter so the unmanned option didn't occur to me.

Great. Now I can record the feature lecturer at the insurance adjusters conference next month without having to miss a single moment by pausing the recording and then restarting. Seriously though...is non-stop recording (a feature that many people seem to go on about) not at all a big deal? Legitimate question: does anyone here really need to record this long? I'm actually curious.

Seems like the GX85 would be okay. You stay in M43, shoot 4K, and you get a nice little camera that can stabilize your hand held shots. I wouldn't nessecarily invest in a bunch of new glass if you don't really have to. However, only you know how much low-light you're trying to deal with. Personally, I've never had too much trouble with LUMIX cameras in low light, but I also have a f1.2 lens with a speed booster for darker shots, which helps tremendously. As for the "pro"ness of it all, here's my anecdote: During my wedding I gave my GM1 to my 16 year old nephew. It had the Oly 45mm 1.8 lens on it. With the f-stop wide open, aperture priority, and everything else set on automatic, I told him to go to town, frame up faces at eye level from 5 feet away, and shoot stills of everyone at the reception. No flash, available light. Because of those simple rules, the nice magic hour light that was filtering into the ballroom, and his personality of being willing and able to effortless socialize with strangers and warmly interact with him, he got twice as many good photographs of the reception than the wedding photog that was paid thousands of dollars to be there and was running around nervously with a Canon 1D, 5 different lenses, and a flash. Our wedding album is half of my nephew's shots. And we got all those pictures simply because he was curious about the little camera I was carrying around so I thought I'd let him use it and see what happened. This incident just shows that photography is more about how one interacts with the environment they're in and takes advantage of it rather than the gear. (Although the gear does help if you're also good at the craft of it all.) Anyway, something to consider.

Amen to that; needs some tweaking ability on the video side.

The off-mount recommendation is a pretty practical suggestion. With my EM5II, I can record directly into the camera from the hot-shoe mounted EW-100 receiver, which works great and is as bulky and non-streamlined as I ever want my cameras to get; don't like a lot of crap hanging off them. However, as mentioned above, when shooting with a camera like the GX85, and no audio input is possible (or if you want the extra fidelity) then carrying around the receiver & recorder in a small shoulder bag has worked quite well me.

When I'm following one person, I put a ew100 wireless lav mic on them and forget it. In my shoulder bag I carry around the receiver/Zoom recorder. And I monitor the audio with headphones as it records. If it's a bigger group, then an audio op with a boom pole and shot gun is required. Shotgun on the camera? No. Not a fan of that. You're right that one can't get the best audio recording to the cheesy preamps of these hybrid cameras. But, for b-roll, I've found that the audio is quite adequate when using my EW100's, and it certainly is a lot easier to handle as a one-man-band.

Sure 'nuff. Based on how I shoot, and the fact I'll be using the same glass as always, I expect footage will feel and "look" exactly like what I get out of my 5-axis EM5II --with just a heck of a lot better resolution! However, from all accounts the color is better than the GX7 and now, of course, there's the 4K. So, you know, sharper images all around, but I'm thinking my experience with the camera will be what I'm used to with the GX7. Breezy. Effective. A little bland to use, but not difficult. As it happens, I grown incredibly fond of the ergonomics of the EM5II. Man, I like shooting with that camera. Nice EVF, wonderful battery grip, direct audio input and monitoring!!! (I mean, that's really one of it's great underappreciated features. So damn practical. I love being able to record subjects with a wireless mic straight to the card and monitor it while it's happening. So nice for documentary film making.) *Sigh* I'll miss THAT for sure. While I'm shooting AND in post. Ugh, syncing b-roll audio... But the IQ of the GX85 can't be ignored, so I'll use it for now. I suspect a year or so down the road Oly should be in the 4K game. ( curse you Olympus for not being there yet as I head into a big project! ) At that point, if they're even close to IQ of the Panys, I'll definitely head back to Olympus; simply for the ergos and the tidy audio set-up. Seriously, for me, it just feels great to use.

Perhaps. But then again, I say as a documentarian, so what? From the POV of my reality I think I disagree with your assertion. I guess, by certain perception, I'm in the "I can barely make it" camp. As it happens, I've never been beholden to the idea that certain gear is inherently not-good-enough simply because of the market it's being sold to. I rent when I need to and I shoot with many of these contemptible "toys" when I need to. My opinion is that a tool is a tool. I'm not going to bring a "knife to a gun fight" nor am I going to do the opposite. It's curious, I think, how some people perceive themselves as superior in an (supposedly) artistic medium simply because they have more expensive pro tools to do the craft. Does anyone else find that odd? Especially these days? That sort of elitism was curious even a decade ago. Now, it really doesn't make sense. Anyone with $3K can access more than good enough IQ/audio/post for a production that, with skill, will look around 90%+ as good as anything. That's NOT rhetoric. I'm convinced it's just the truth. What am I to believe? The defensive opinions of industry professionals threatened by the gear democratization, or my lying eyes when I see the work of Kendy Ty or a Ruslan Pelykh? You tell me, because there are a lot of people out there kicking ass with cameras that wouldn't even cover the cost of a friggin' camera battery from a few decades ago. What get delivered is what counts.* But, as far as I'm concerned, if I artistically need to use an iPhone or an Alexa to cross a finish line, that's what's gonna happen. And for what I'm doing, it's been leaning toward the former rather than the later for years now. Finally, I'd even argue "amateurs" is exactly a pejorative. If anything, by the original etymology of that word, it probably has more merit and artistic integrity these days than "professional." * ( For reasons only they can justify, a lot of corporate work I do actually wants the allure of "real" gear around during the process. )

Here's a decent argument for PC: https://youtu.be/7rkZTTRdiWA Also, another wrinkle is that I'd like to have a system for the assistant editor to work on simultaneously. The cost of 2 modest PC's that'll handle 4K, vs. the cost of 2 high-end iMacs that'll handle 4K... well, the number between the 2 systems really starts to get, let's say, "unfortunate." On the other hand, I really like OS X, the FCPX option, and ProRes. But, I don't know if those "likes" are worth +$3.5K. As much as I am loathe to admit it, unless yore editing with FCPX, I think the Apple products are not terribly competitive at the moment. Of course, this assumes that a home-built PC will be as stable as a Mac system. That's still the wild card I can't figure out yet.

Indeed. At the moment I'm waffling mightily. While I think that an iMac system would be nice and easy, when I price out what you can do with a PC system, it's just bonkers price-to-performance (on paper). If I wasn't burned so many times in the past with Microsofts OS', I think I'd be more "gung-ho!" to give Resolve on Windows a shot. For instance: The HP z820 can be had for 2K. It includes Dual Intel Xeon Six Core Processors E5-2640 @2.5GHz, 128GB RAM, and the graphic card is NVIDIA Quadro 4000 2GB PCI Express. I think I'd also like to add the new GTX1080 and have 3 Dell UltraSharp U2515H 25-Inch monitors. That's 2k for the PC + $700 for the extra GTX1080 card + $370 + $370 + $370 So, is it fair to assume this would be a very robust and stable system to effectively handle Resolve, edit 25 minute docs shot in the mp4 4k format, and run the 3 monitors? This set-up would still be cheaper than an iMac system running 3 monitors, and arguably much faster. But what about stability? Does Resolve crash often on Windows or has it proven to be rock solid? Don't know yet, still trying to suss it out. Plus, if I go PC, then I don't have the FCPX safety net to fall back on if Resolve has any issues. I don't know what to think of Adobe these days. I've used Premiere a bit but it just feels clunky.

Fun footage. I'd say it would have even more potential if you put the camera on something that had a lot of mass: For instance, something as cheesy as this would actually make a world of difference: https://fstoppers.com/diy/make-diy-steadicam-style-camera-stabilizer-71819 BTW, what's the shutter speed, ISO, and f-stop of that footage? This footage does show the inherent limitations of a 5-axis stabilizer. As been mentioned, 5-axis does not mean the camera can be used like a steady cam, (seems to be a misconception about that) but if you make the right shooting decisions (i.e. FOV, disciplined shooting technique) you can still get useful steadycam-emulated stuff with 5-axis helping out a little bit.

Is that something you've done, or are doing in the future? I'd like to hear your testimony regarding a Resolve/PC system. I've read mixed reviews online regarding stability with Resolve12 on a Windows PC. With so many individuals doing custom builds of PC's it's hard to discern if it's a goofy computer problem because someone assembled cheap PC components in a strange way, or the fact that Resolve isn't as stable as it should/could be on Windows. I just want to get something up and running and then forget about it. Just have it do the job, you know? At the very least, I know if Resolve poops out on the Mac I can fall back to FCPX and have a stable way forward. More important than the expense is the ability to work without issue. Not only do I need the time to focus on editing, I truly don't want to be trouble shooting computer components anymore, I did enough of that back in the day. So, the "turnkey" viability of something (PC or a Mac) is super important. Maybe the better question to my original post should be this: If any of you have 4-$4.5K to buy and run a relatively glitch free Resolve editing system with 3 monitors, what would be your recommended *works-right-out-of-the-box-stably-system? ( *understood that I would nuke the pre-installed system files and do a clean re-install of the OS )

Polarizer on the lens?