Ken Ross

Since the discussion was leaning towards AF, I found this new 4K60p sample. For the first 1/2 of the video, the AF generally works well, especially considering the busy background. In the 2nd half, as the subject turns his back to the camera, focus is lost on him and directed toward the background as expected (the shooter used face detection). Once the subject stopped, acquisition on his face was wonky, but honestly, given how this second shot was performed, this poor behavior was not much different than I've experienced with both the A7Rii and A6300 in similar situations. As is true with so many of these videos, we have no idea what firmware version this was. Oh, and I'm sorry about his narration.

4 hours ago, Miklos Nemeth said: "As in the original article A. Reid writes "Don’t expect much in the way from AF in video mode. Dual Pixel AF it is not." This is definitely a show-stopper in 2017 for many of us. Sony/Canon has the technology for three years now, and it works brilliantly. No way I am going back to "stone age" just because Panasonic is not willing to embrace usable video AF. This is not a professional camera, guys, the GH5 is just enthusiast/consumer gear. No usable video AF, no magnification while recording? What the hell Panasonic is thinking. Definitely, I'll give it a try, but I am not really willing to pay 2000EUR for no AF videocamera, no way." Well I think stating the camera has 'no usable video AF' and it's a 'no AF videocamera' is a whole lot of hyperbole. Why do I say that? I've used a G85 for a while now and its AF is at least a step below the GH5's and yet it's quite usable. Is it as good as the A7Rii or A6300 I've used? No. Is it usable? Most definitely. As with most other aspects of a camera, you need to learn a feature's strengths & weaknesses. The AF is no different.

The more I've used these cameras, from FF to APS-C to 4/3rds, the differences in overall PQ, are, IMO, not as great as some make them out to be. Sure there are low light differences, DR differences (that I personally think are, in practical use, not all that significant), some resolution differences etc., but the better cameras are really so close in overall PQ, that they're closer in quality than they are further apart. Personally I see a greater difference in OOC color than anything else. So I think there's some validity in saying it's the features, ergonomics and overall usability that may trump overall PQ performance. YMMV.

I think even if you were to believe there's some hyperbole in Andy's statement, due to some 'nefarious' manufacturer's connection, it's surely not a stretch to concur with his thought that the GH5 has leaped ahead of the competition. And let's be honest, since we're talking about video, that competition is called Sony.

Oliver, the testing I did was with the Sony OIS 18-200 lens. I'm often puzzled by those that do these tests with short focal length lenses. You can't tell the 'real' effectiveness of the IBIS until you get into the longer focal lengths. So if I shot with this lens on the A6300 at, say 200mm, and then shot with the same lens, at the same focal length on the A6500, there was virtually no differences. IOW the 6500's IBIS added little to nothing over the effectiveness of the OIS already in the lens. Hence there was no stabilization advantage to the 6500 with these OIS lenses.

I never really thought about it, but I wonder if there's a difference in the effectiveness of the IBIS in HD vs 4K? I never really tried that on my G85, since I don't shoot in HD.

I actually had an A6500 and returned it for precisely the IBIS issue I mentioned. I had an A6300 since its release, and the A6500, with its IBIS, was no better with Sony OIS lenses than the A6300 was with those same lenses. IOW, the IBIS added nothing to what was already there in the stabilized lenses. Yes, for non-stabilized lenses the A6500 is a real plus, but when you compare it to a camera like the A6300 with stabilized lenses, it's really no better. That was a big disappointment, as the Sonys have always been prone to jitter, especially at longer focal lengths. I did notice the A6500's color was somewhat better than my A6300 or any of A7xx series, but not enough to keep me. It's interesting that most reviews I've read don't even point to the improved color in the A6500. To me it was pretty obvious. I still think Sony has a lot of work to do to catch up to where the GH5 is.

Add to the things that Sony would also need to include to be competitive with the GH5 are much improved color 'science', EVFs that don't dim when shooting 4K, LCD screens that swing out & pivot, and an IBIS that's actually effective. Their current iteration is really poor.

^ I wonder if that speed is valid for 4K or HD? HD AF speed is faster than when in 4K.

So the interesting thing is their review, was that by using the appropriate AF settings, they claimed they were able to cut their out-of-focus shots by 1/2. They went from a 60% hit rate at the default setting to an 85% hit rate with their revised settings. Of course since they tend not to be 'videocentric' I didn't see anything really relating to video...unless I missed it.

I've seen more effective GH5 AF samples than this. Not sure what they did that caused that degree of hunting. Perhaps they should not have increased focus speed as they did. There are many settings for AF, so for this type of subject matter I don't recall what the best settings were. The low light examples looked quite good. For something like that, with a stationary object sitting in front of the camera for 10 minutes, MF is the obvious choice.

Impressive. Some nice work there.

I really don't see the rationale in pointing the finger at Panasonic for not implementing (or giving the choice for implementing) H265 across the board, simply because it's used in one iteration of its many modes. The rationale for giving Sony the pass simply because they haven't implemented the necessary hardware, is not adequate. Why haven't they released a camera with the necessary hardware? How long has it been since the NX1? If Sony wanted to do this they could, but obviously they don't...for whatever 'selfish' reason. I'm sorry, IMO Panasonic deserves more credit, not more 'blame' than Sony and others, for at least a partial implementation of 265. Further, at least in my case, if there was an obvious benefit in PQ (not guaranteed), as the result of H265's across-the-board implementation, I would switch editing programs just as I did with the NX1. Using the argument of more efficient storage utilization, doesn't sway me either. Storage is simply too cheap these days for me to ditch my favorite editing solution for that reason. Jost my 2 cents.

The more you read the more you realize Andrew was correct.

Call me naive, but I think his explanation was perfectly plausible and made sense. I harken back to my NX1 days. I loved the camera's output but hated being locked into editing solutions that were not of my choice. At the time I was using Edius Pro and it would not take H265. Transcoding was a PIA, so I had to use a very simple program that didn't being to have the capabilities of Edius. Now that I'm using FCP, I'd be faced with the same dilemma, switch to an editing program not of my choice that does accept H265, or transcode. So I'm actually glad Panasonic stuck with 264 at this point.

If you accuse Panasonic of greed, then you most certainly have to accuse Sony of greed. At least Panasonic will have some degree of H265 implementation in the GH5. With Sony, H265 utilization is totally absent.

This is kind of a chicken and egg thing. As long as Sony & Panasonic, the key players on the video side, don't utilize H265, we probably won't see universal H265 support on the editing side. With that said, I'd be less than honest if I said I wasn't annoyed that FCP still doesn't support it. At least with the GH5, there will be some limited H265 utilization. Sony still has none.