Mmmbeats

The original comment that I thought was debatable was that FF has more impact on picture quality than bit depth (8-bit compared to 10-bit); that's what I found contentious. But I do think it's become a bit of a derail at this stage.

I agree there's a dip. I've never done a side-by-side, but the little I shot, and watching others footage, I'd say you lose around a stop. BMPCC footage in Prores easily bests GH4 / GH5 for DR in my experience.

It's also based on my practical experience of using Sony, Panasonic and Blackmagic cameras over the past few years. There are definitely areas in which the FF bodies have had an advantage, but I'm convinced that people have become seduced by the 'bigger is better' hype, and lost all sense of objectivity. I hear and read people tying themselves in knots trying to convince that sensor size itself bestows advantages that it does not.

No, I'm quite happy to base my knowledge on industry stalwarts like Adam Wilt, thankyou. And confident in sharing his contributions with others. He's clearly a great deal better informed than your good self . I'd love to know what you mean by 'all else' in your phrase above? Surely you don't mean codec? There's plenty of footage from the BMPCC for example recorded on Prores (obv. not RAW) that still displays high dynamic range. You (and others) might have to revise your thinking a bit.

I'm picking up a point that @markr041 made about sensor size, which I'm interested in since it's relevant to this conversation about the GH5S, and particularly peoples' misconceptions of it. Join in, or don't - but don't tell me where to post.

There seem to be quite a few people here who are under the impression that some of the achievements of Sony's camera's, such as dynamic range, are due to the size of the sensor. DR is inherently initially a product of the sensor (retained or reduced during compression). That's why I pointed out the BMPCC's relatively tiny sensor's ability to produce wide dynamic range - it is not a quality inherent in full-frame sensor acquisition.

Full Frame does not confer more detail, or dynamic range. Low light sensitivity I'll go with. And DoF - but APS-C cameras provide more than adequate DoF options. There are some fantastically well-featured FF cameras about - but people seem to think that some of their features are a function of Full frame itself. This isn't the case. If you think that Full Frame = superior dynamic range then you should take a look at how the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera performs in this regard as a starting point.

No, my point is, the actual advantages to visual quality that come directly from FF. A lot of those qualities are not inherent to FF or caused by it.

I'm really interested to know why people think there is an inherent advantage to FF. I enjoyed Adam Wilt's investigation of this: https://www.provideocoalition.com/bigger-is-better-ok-but-why/

It differs from territory to territory. i believe the GH4 sold for the EU market has the limitation, other models do not. I also believe (from memory) that the GH5 is unrestricted in all territories.

I haven't used the camera yet, but almost certainly the only issue with it will be sensor resolution. Apart from that it will likely perform as well or better (with it's increased RAW bit depth) than the other GH series cameras - that is to say, very well indeed (but perhaps not quite as good as other offerings in it's price range). So then you just have to decide whether the resolution is good enough for the purposes you have in mind. For web publishing the answer is almost certainly yes; but for making prints and posters you'll be limited to somewhere around the 8.5 x 13 inches mark.

Why so?

If the bottom codec is an 8-bit codec that admittedly looks great, but by it's very nature is going to struggle under heavy creative grading, and the top codec is a RAW workflow that is gorgeous, but slow and cumbersome, then yes, you need a middle codec for robust 10-bit goodness, when speed and creative flexibility are both of the essence. I happen to take mellanmjölk with my cereal too.

Well, as much as I admire your photography, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with a lot of what you've said there. Everybody prefers the quality of primes. I shoot almost exclusively on them. But that's not the only consideration. When you're filming actuality that's changing fast in front of you, you just can't afford to faff around changing lenses. That's where a good quality (and yes, that does mean pricey) zoom wins out. Every time. This comes down to the shot. DoF is a storytelling tool like all others. It works best when it is used with an awareness of contrast. Shallow depth of field, after shallow depth of field, just starts to lose it's impact and meaning. Mix it up a bit in keeping with the flow of the storytelling, is my preference as both a viewer and a shooter. One thing I feel strongly is that super shallow DoF is destroying the relationship between the subject and their surroundings in a lot of short films I see online. The main thing is that you should be able to make the choice based on your own creative interpretation, not just because you've run out of exposure options. It's pretty easily demonstrable that most lenses are indeed sharper slightly stopped down (regardless of cost). Having said that, I'm generally happy to shoot wide open on most lenses despite the slight difference. Erm... that's exactly the thinking that's driving me towards the GH5s - it opens up more creative choices. His comments apply to just about any LED panel or hard light out there (apart from the massive new 4 x 4 flexlights, or the really high output lights like the 300D or whatever). Getting them to look nice and soft *and* retain a decent level of brightness is often a struggle. I actually think this will be one of the biggest benefits of the system.

Is there any reliable info on whether the GH5s uses dual circuitry like the Varicam range, or if it's dual ISO is a different effect produced by the new sensor tech?

I don't know if it's proper etiquette to post stuff from other forums here, so please forgive / delete as appropriate if it's not the done thing. I thought this was a really good comment by a user on DVXuser (Thomas Smet) : I'm particularly excited about points 1 and 5. I've mentioned lenses before, but I'm constantly wishing I could add more diffusion to LED lights, but until now there's been too much of a loss of output.

Here something that Sean Robinson (Panasonic) said on Facebook, if it helps:

I guess for me, with the whole IBIS vs low light thing - stabilisation is not a *problem* at the moment, whereas sensitivity often is. IBIS would give me an improvement in an area that I'm currently comfortable with, whereas the improved ISO performance will remove the biggest problematic limitation I currently have with my setup (and in fact, only serious drawback to using the system IMO).

Can you re-link to the file please?

My requirement is no focus-by-wire. My current target is the Canon 24-70 L II f/2.8. Would be great for events, workshops, etc. I currently tend to flip between the Sigma 18-35 and a longer lens (often a Samyang 85mm). I'm eager to ditch the lens changes. Monopod is all the stabilisation I need - has been working just fine up till now (not to say that IBIS wouldn't have opened up other options mind you).

Which is *exactly* what I've been wishing for.

Seems to contradict what others have stated (and I'm in no position to contribute) but this is a Samuel Bilodeau (Mystery Box) reply on that blog page:

I agree that people are going totally overboard, but one thing I'd highlight is that IBIS is not really a replacement for external stabilisation, but what it does really well is eliminate micro-judder, and thereby make hand-held footage a far more viable option. There's no doubt it's a useful facility, but nothing that can't be lived without.

Hmmm... looks like it has a particularly cumbersome workflow. Also uses audio in to your camera - does that negate both channels?

This is worth discussing. I remember seeing this technology touted a few years back. If it works it might be a good pairing with the GH5s. It's potentially a much better solution than using Warp Stabiliser on its own. Any views?