Ken Ross

No, absolutely, not, they weren't 'very different' from Max's test for the portion that I did. I did 2 tests that mirrored 2 of his tests (the outdoor test and the 'lens in front of the camera' test. Both of my tests were 100% successful and 100% repeatable and both of his were utter failures. How can you possibly ignore this even if I didn't conduct every single test he did? I never contended that I duplicated every test he did. And I also made it clear I was using the 14-140 lens. I won't go out and buy the lens he used so I can duplicate that aspect too. Folks will ignore those results too if it doesn't fit their preconceived notions. I did do an indoor test in a dark house during a stormy day that I posted. Granted I didn't have a subject moving toward and away from me, but I did walk through the house seeing if the CAF would focus as I walked. It did. FWIW, I don't believe the 14-140 lens is astronomically better than the 12-35 for AF. It would take that astronomical difference in lenses to explain my results vs his. Much easier to believe a defective camera or something else. Now I'm not saying this is you, but as I've seen for many years, when a new piece of equipment is introduced (and this could be cameras, TVs, audio equipment etc.), there are many that try to denigrate that equipment because they don't want to invest in new equipment and have a need to defend what they own. It's human nature for many of us. Actually he never 'bashed' Max. That's a bit of hyperbole. What he did poke fun at, justifiably IMO, was one of Max's favorite tests, having his subject pop up from below and disappear. Personally I think it's a silly test that's representative of nothing in real shooting. The reason he used an external recorder was to prove where his settings were so that we could all see them while he was recording, something that was missing from Max's video. I personally thought it was a nice touch. To be perfectly honest, I too was unaware until I watched that video that there was an AF performance difference between internal & external recording. I'd bet most owners are unaware of that.

How is that different than every other camera manufacturer's manual that talks about AF effectiveness and then proceeds to list 10-15 things that might compromise AF? I shoot exclusively in 4K and have had no such issues. The AF subject is becoming tedious since some, apperently non-owners, just won't believe any evidence to the contrary. I firmly believe someone could duplicate Max's video in every phase of his testing, achieve perfect AF, and it would be ignored. After all, I've duplicated a couple of his tests and those same folks ignore that too. After I posted a couple of videos showing the AF was fine, someone asked me to duplicate the test of his failure when he brought a lens in front of his camera and it failed to focus. His failed every time. I did the test and it focused every single time. The same folks seem to have ignored that too, fascinating. I'm beginning to think it's an utter waste of time for anyone to post evidence to the contrary. Believe what you wish guys. B, they'll all be ignored by a few. I just checked my original video. It absolutely, positively does not show up in the original 4K video. It is apparently a product of YouTube compression. The roof is 100% clean and devoid of moire in the original. dbp, thanks, you beat me to it. Over the years I've seen countless times where an artifact is blamed on the camera as opposed to YouTube compression artifacts or, watching a 4K YouTube video on an HD monitor. Even that can introduce artifacts that were never there in the original video.

Max's camera is on par? Really? With what, another broken camera? Despite other videos which show something quite different, including the ones I've posted? There appear to be a couple of folks here that would rather pick one video as representative of the AF and all other videos be damned. It's an interesting thing to watch people ignore what is clearly contradictory evidence.

And yet all I did in all my AF tests that simulated Max's test, was to use central area focusing at default settings (never even touched sensitivity & speed). I contend that for many situations, there's no need to make it more complicated than it needs to be. Such a bad rap for this camera due to Max's testing. I see more and more owners scratching their heads over his video. And as more and more people get their GH5 and post their results, I see more and more comments just like this. Yet Max doubles down despite this. I've posted a few of my comments (very polite) regarding my testing resulting in totally different results, along with links to the videos, yet he never responded once. It just gets stranger and stranger. If you watched his video straight through, he conducted tests that were virtually identical to two I posted. He too went from a car to something else and back to the car. His camera refused to focus, mine was fine in the same tests. Sorry, but my testing mirrored his testing for that piece of the video. As for focus tracking, I would never use it since I don't think it's effective in any camera I've used. Never worked right in any Sony I've used.

I guess you didn't see all the tests I conducted with my GH5 and posted on these pages. I believe he has a defective body since I couldn't begin to duplicate the horrible performance he posted. My GH5's AF is absolutely fine and comparable to what I experienced with my A6300...maybe better.

Seems like Lok's works pretty much like mine and certainly nothing like Max's. As I've said before, it's really a shame the GH5 is getting an unjustifiably bad rap from Max's unit.

Fritz, the 12-60 kit lens is definitely worth it in the bundle. It's a capable little lens and one of the better kit lenses you'll find.

Fritz, the 12-60 is the only the kit lens that came with my G85.

Thanks Fritz. The indoor video I shot was taken during heavy rain with no lights on. It was pretty dark in the house. As is the case with almost any video camera, indoors shots under those conditions won't have quite the resolution of brighter, outdoor shots. What I'm also seeing, for the most part, is that the AF doesn't tend to overshoot.

No problem marty, will do. Uploading to Youtube now. It's hard to believe that the lens could make all the difference I'm seeing between Max's video and mine. Zmarty, here ya go. Give it a bit of time to upgrade to 4K. It's now a low rez, but you should still see the focus.

Thanks webrunner, I agree. It was actually the GH5 and I was trying to duplicate, as close as I could, the terrible failures Max had doing the same shots. I really find it hard to believe the 14-140 lens has that much better AF, if any.

Thanks webrunner5. Hey, I'm getting new bananas! It's just unfortunate the camera is getting such a bad rap when Max's issues are obviously not universal as other GH5 owners have said what I have. Max should have at least acknowledged there may have been something wrong with his camera.

What is? The video I just posted shows quick & largely accurate AF. I've wondered that too. I've only been using the 14-140 lens and have never gotten his results. However I wouldn't rule out a bad body either as other GH5 owners on his website have suggested.

So here's the video I promised. I tried to duplicate Max's AF scenario as best I could. None of these clips have been edited and none that I shot were left out. Everything you see is everything I shot. Very different results. What can I say? As I've said before, these results are extremely typical for everything I've shot thus far. I've never shot a single clip that even remotely resembles what Max got.

Thanks Fritz. This is the first day we've had some sun in a while and after watching Max's video, I decided I'd go out and shoot some clips that duplicated one of his failed tests. I will put this video together and you'll see how totally different our cameras behave. No comparison whatsoever. It's such a pity this camera is getting such a bad rap for, what I think, is an obviously defective unit.

Just watched Max's video and to say I'm perplexed is as gross an understatement as I can imagine. I'm going to try that outdoor test he did with focusing on the car and then something in the distance. If you read the comments below the video, you'll see there are other GH5 owners, like myself, who also say theirs are very fast and very reliable and are also confused by his results. I'm almost inclined to go along with a couple of posters who think he has a problem with his body...camera body that is. In the interim, here's a 4K video I had shot on day one with the GH5 during a stormy day in N.Y. I turned off all the lights in the house and it was actually fairly dark, despite what a few angles show. This was using the relatively slow 14-140 lens (F3.5), so no assist from the lens. As I turn from a closeup of the flowers, to the living room, you'll get a better idea as to what the lighting actually looked like. At the time of this posting, the video was still only in HD on YouTube, so it needs more time to process to 4K.

That's what I don't get. His are the absolute worst results I've seen. I wonder if he doesn't overthink the AF. I have it on central area focusing, the default area size (the AF has been so good I'm terrified to touch anything!) and the camera has shown minimal hunting and stays locked on the target. Now granted I don't have people running toward or away from the camera since that's not what I typically shoot. However in my tests, I have shot subjects/objects close to the lens and then immediately changed my focus point to something 10-20' away. I've walked around the house while shooting at varying distances. Results have been quick and sure-footed. I'll upload a test I did last night for a friend. i doubt the AF of my 14-140 is so exceptional so as to explain why I've had no issues. BTW, I didn't even watch his 2nd AF video, but I will later today.

Jon, no, but I should have explained how I shot this to explain what you're seeing. As I moved to different spots in the mall, I was sitting in areas where there were arrays of 6 or so seats and a couch. My seat would generally be 12'-15' (I'm guessing) from my 'subject'. These were obviously candid shots (technically you're not supposed to shoot in the mall) and I wanted to be as discreet as possible. So I had the camera on my thigh with my legs crossed and the VF swung out so that I could look down, not appearing to be shooting. I was probably 3/4 zoomed in with the 14-140 lens, while I'd make slight adjustments with my leg and camera for relatively consistent framing...a really lousy monopod. That resulted in those slight movements that would not have occurred with the camera to my eye, as I almost always shoot hand-held. So that's the long winded answer to the jitter question. I wasn't even careful in adjusting exposure since it was hard to see the zebras in the LCD (I wear reading glasses). I'll look out for it though in my normal shooting style. My impression of the GH5 IBIS is that it's a bit more effective than in the G85. I think that's more a function of the size and weight (bigger cams are generally easier to hold steady) than an actual improvement in the IBIS.

Not for me, because that's surely not the results I've gotten. I think if 100 owners posted perfect AF results, some would still fall back on Max's test. I wonder why Max gets the worst results of anyone I've read?

I'm really not sure what profile I'll be using, but it may well be subject dependent. In this case my 'focus' was AF and I figured I'd have 709 along for the ride.

So here's a test of the GH5's AF. I used the 709 Profile, 14-140 lens and center area AF. Focus was set for CAF to see if any hunting occurred and if so, to what degree. I've shot in this same mall with the Sony A6300 & A7Rii with results that weren't as good. At times these other cameras would lock on to areas and objects behind the subject. Given all the things I've read on some sites, the AF has been far better than I expected. I've really had excellent success. Yes, if you look closely you'll see a bit of hunting in a couple of clips, but nothing really disturbing. If I wasn't testing the AF, but still wanted to use AF, I would probably have used 'lock on AF'.

Can we, in keeping with the thread title, keep this to information regarding the GH5? This is slowly but steadily evolving into a Sony thread.

It is lossless, it simply crops the sensor. But while we're at, who wouldn't want Clear zoom to be lossless? See how that works?

Emanuel, I think at times people are looking for excuses to not buy a given piece of equipment. Others are trying to defend equipment they already own by over-exaggerating flaws of new entries. I see this all the time and not just with cameras. It's human nature.

Proving that there are 1/2 glass full people and 1/2 glass empty folks. It is what it and it is lossless. The Sony is not. But you do seem to be doing a good job in actually making this a Sony vs Panasonic thing.