ita149

Using both FF and M43 I can't agree more. I can add the other big thing making a difference is how the camera is processing details when shooting internal.

No, I never used Olympus cameras, only the f1.2 lenses. But I heard good things about their IBIS.

I would have apprecied a comparison between Open Gate and 4K with everything higher than a 8mm lens (like he did in his previous video), because saying the stabilization is the same while testing the IBIS only at this focal lenght is not serious. In my tests, both the GH6 and G9II have worse stabilization in Open Gate with lenses > at 15mm, more jumps. I understand he likes Panasonic a lot but owning all the recent Panasonic cameras, I can say it's a very oriented comparison to makes people believe the camera has no flaws. In the same way, all these youtubers almost never compare the video IQ (details rendering) between 4K/6K/Open Gate or between the recent and the "old" gen Panasonic cameras, and yet there is a lot to be said. Each time we need to compare the cameras ourselves or wait the impression of people who bought the camera themselve.

And I love how influencers try to hide cameras shortcomings, like when testing the IBIS only in certain conditions. Comparing the Open Gate and 4K IBIS performance while walking at 8mm only and saying there is no difference between these recording modes is a real joke.

Why there is so much crop in C4K Prores RAW ? I never liked the 4K/C4K output over the 5,7K on my GH6 and G9II, the fine details are different. I wonder if the huge crop in proresraw and the worse quality in 4K H265/ProresHQ are related.

I agree, I have the 10-25mm and 25-50mm, both are fantastic and they have very good AF on the GH5 (better than on the GH6 when using 1 zone focus). I also have the S Pro 24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8, but I mostly use the M43 lenses. I want them for my Panasonic S cameras !

I think the OG S5 and the S1 still have the best video quality with very similar image than a raw picture file, as opposed to the recent cameras like the S5II. Even if the S5II has better IBIS in 4K, and much better AF, these S5 and S1 are a steal for people who don't need very fast AF.

If you really picky about image quality, the S9 (if it has the same IQ than the S5II) has not the same video quality than the S5. Each time I crop inside the videos of my S5II, I remember how good the S5 is. Some people don't see the difference in image quality, but the difference on skin textures by exemple is not insignificant. If the S9 has the same video IQ than the S5 and the same AF than the S5II, I will buy it for sure.

The Panasonic S5 for me. Better internal video quality than the S5II and not as big as the S1 and S1H. Of course the S5II has better AF, but I can't stand the internal video engine of this camera. The GH6 when using 5,7K ProRes is a good alternative too.

Yes, you're right. This is the first thing I noticed when I bought my S5II. Coming from the S5, S1 and even GH5, I'm very disappointed by their new processing. V-Log is less impacted but when I compare the 4K V-Log of my S1 and S5 to my S5II, I can see a difference when cropping a bit, details are rougher on the S5II. Panasonic is well know for its great image quality, I don't know why they did this on the S5II, maybe to attract smartphone users.

I agree, I want the NR setting since the beginning =).

Yes better low light and better IQ.

It not just you, it's obvious ! I don't understand why Panasonic have released a little camera faster and with better IQ video than the GH4 with 12-35mm combinaison for just 900$. Many people are in the process of reselling their GH4 or at least their 12-35 now. Moreover, their prices are dropping ...

Interesting, Panasonic should lower the 12-35mm price now.

With Exiftool, read my previous post <_< ... Try it on the video and you will see the same informations. Im not guessing. Too soft because ive downloaded his clip and ive downsampled it to 1080p and the result is not very good. Do the same if you don't believe me. It's pointless to lecture people when you don't even read the post.

I precise it's not my video, maybe his lens is decentered so it make sense if he want to test it at f2.8. Anyway, i've linked his video for the sharpness "problem", not really for the corner softness. If he had lowered the sharpness, his footage would have been really soft, especially if he want to downsample to 1080p. -Oversharpned at that point with default sharpness and noise reduction is not really good i think. -Corners are a bit soft yes, but nothing bad. -I don't see moire on this video too and i ve never said it. Thanks you for your advice but ive tried it myself and it's not the only case, a lot of videos posted on the net show the oversharpening. Download this video and you will see by yourself : A first I thought the LX had better IQ than the 12-35 but absoluty not, it's only oversharpened.

Yes it's the original footage, just check with ExifTool. If you want the settings : Contrast -1, saturation -2, sharpness 0, noise reduction 0. Iso 200, f2.8, 1/5000. To be clear, i never said the camera was bad, and if if we are parrots when we are giving our opinion, very well then. So yes the corner sharpness is not bad considering the small lens, but i've compared it to the gh4 with the 12-35. The real "problem" for me is the oversharpened video and the lack of IQ on landscape or far subject.

Of course, it's my monitor, what an idiot i am. By the way, download this clip for vimeo : https://vimeo.com/111291938 Look at the trees, they are oversharpened. And when you downsample to 1080p, it just give a "bad" video quality for a downsampled image.

I had the opportunity to use it again today, and while i still find that on a close subject, the picture quality is great, on a distant subject or for landscape, it's less convincing. Soft corners, more moire than my gh4, and mostly, the sharpness is too high (if I reduce it, the picture is a bit soft but a lot of moire disappears), it seems the camera sharpening is overused.

and yet the 12-35 is more expensive than the LX100 ...

Yes it do 24p but not 30 in my country, it's 25p "max", sorry i misspoke :).

While it's true the LX is less practical than the Gh4, several things surprised me. First, the stabilizer ! Better on the LX than the 12-35, a real pleasure (but apparently less good when recording while moving) ! Then, for video image quality, the LX is not very sharp at f1.7, stopped down to f2.8 with 400 ISO give better result but with a bit more noise. In fact the LX at f2.8 is sharper than the 12-35 at same aperture, quite a feat ! Otherwise, there are equal, maybe a bit sharper on the LX ! However, the frame rate is limited to 25fps on the LX in my country :( and CINEV is missing (CineD too but i dislike it). I hesitate to sell my 12-35 now !

The 12-35 stabilization is not bad if you don't record with your hands stretched upwards, but the LX100 is better, especially at 35mm. I've read on several sites that the LX is less steady while moving or paning, this explain why some people prefer the lx100 stab and others the 12-35 stab. Unfortunately i haven't done the comparison while moving, but it seems obvious. But the most surprising is the lens, better than the 12-35 on a gh4, it's a gem.

I come back with news, i've bought the 12-35 and i've compared it to the LX of a friend. While it's true the LX is less practical than the Gh4, several things surprised me. First, the stabilizer ! Better on the LX, a real pleasure ! Then, for image quality, the LX is not very sharp at f1.7, stopped down to f2.8 with 400 ISO give better result but with a bit more noise. In fact the LX at f2.8 is sharper than the 12-35 at same aperture, quite a feat ! Otherwise, there are equal, maybe a bit sharper on the LX ! However, the frame rate is limited to 25fps on the LX :( and CINEV is missing (CineD too but i dislike it). I hesitate to sell my 12-35 now ! The choice is really hard since the Lx has better image quality and stabilization; but the 12-35 could still be used on a future camera, not the compact...

Thanks you all - this is helpful !