SteveV4D

I hope Andrew's taken better care of it than the R5... 🔧 😂

Yes of course, I forgot he has some inside knowledge of this camera. I assume he has to wait till the announcement to spill the beans. I'm quite intrigued by this camera, so fingers crossed it is worth the wait. Having been let down by the R5 and R6 announcment, I'm hoping for something that delivers on promise.

As a long term user of Panasonic, I've gotten use to accepting a rubbish AF. If this camera replaces my GH5, as long as it isn't worse, I can live with it. I currently am already. It would be nice if they raised their game here, but I think you'll have to wait until people are testing them before we get the full story. Next weeks announcement will only be what Panasonic want is to know. They are not going to tell us if the AF is rubbish. As for stills and video settings, the S5 does seem to have custom modes on the dial. I use them on the GH5 to slip between different photo and video settings. Fingers crossed there. I'm more interested in price and final video specs.

I don't think you give me enough credit. I can see the benefits of fullframe and for that reason, I am looking at investing in one. But for practical reasons like low light, more options for Photography. Such look you speak is only really apparent in certain shots more unique to that sensor size. Its not like 16mm vs 35mm film, where film grain is different, or anamorphic, where the image is squeezed and stretched, creating a unique look. Even 75mm or 65mm are only apparent as they are used in movies for those shots that really sell it. Joker was filmed on other cameras as well, but would you be able to pick out which from viewing on a smartphone....

And if fullframe becomes the norm, I'll invest in a fullframe video camera. I won't invest in a fullframe hybrid and pretend I'm ready for a fullframe future. There are greater professionals than can be found here, out there shooting movies for cinema screens that are making better use of their S35 cinema cameras than those shooting fullframe hybrids right now because they love the look of fullframe. Let's not pretend that just because fullframe cinema is the future, someone can be ready for it by buying a fullframe Photo camera.

Exactly, fullframe is needed for photography. The future is a funny thing and frankly I don't need to buy a 2025 camera now. I can buy one easily enough in 2025. I got a GH5 in 2017 and now seldom use it. Instead a Pocket 4K from 2018 became my main choice, swiftly followed by a Pocket 6K from 2019. I live in the here and now and don't worry about the future for video. Maybe in 5 years, 3D will be back in fashion. Maybe 10k is what everyone is shooting. Who knows. I never buy gear for the future, just for what I need now, and should it serve me well in the future, all the better. The only gear I invest in for the future is lenses. Camera technology just changes too much over such a short period of time to consider it for future needs.

Oddly enough, someone on DpReview suggested that if you were a Professional, you'd buy 3 of the R5s and use them on a Professional shoot. Thus getting round the overheating problem. It would of course be cheaper to buy a dedicated video camera like the URSA and better value too.

The masses get the R5 and R6 and the best of luck to them...

I hope this is priced well. Might be a good replacement for my GH5, but I don't want to spend a lot on what would-be a supplement to my Pocket cameras.

No it doesn't. I think your mind is allowing you to see things here.. You're probably confusing aesthetics with the type of shots that 70mm are often used for. Christopher Nolan loves 70mm, but on a small screen, its only in aspect ratio that leads you to see the differnce when he cuts between the 2 formats. Its the same people who say they love the fullframe look. I've worked with fullframe and most of the time, there is no difference when cut with smaller sensor shots. Only in cases of extreme depth of field at some angles can you see the effects of using fullframe.

I agree that IBIS, AF and photography is needed, which is why I want a good fullframe with them to supplement my other cameras. My work is varied and require a number of cameras and gear to meet different jobs and requirements. Hybrids certainly have their place, but I have to look at the cost of buying into a new system and what I'm getting for it in returns. For now I may just settle for the new Panasonic, something cheap and basic, until something much better is released to invest in. £4k is a lot and none of the current fullframes on offer quite meet what I really need, making it much harder to select one over the other.

Exactly that. For me, any fullframe hybrid I get will be a B camera to my BM Pockets and used for lowlight, gimbal work and situations where I need weather sealing. I've no problem paying that sort of money even for a B camera, but I struggle to do so for a camera where the IQ of the only usable video for fullframe is lower than what I am use to, yet at a price that is more than both my BM Pockets put together.

I use the Pocket cameras with GH5 as secondary cameras when I need weather sealing and the occasional photo work (about 2 jobs per year). A fullframe camera is needed to replace the GH5, hopefully without compromising what I had with the GH5, reliability and strong features. I'd be intrigued to see and handle video of line skipped 4K, 4K HQ and 8K in scenes where there is a lot of detail, like woodlands, cities - that sort of thing. It would make for a interesting comparison. I didn't say I saw downsampled 4K as bad, that was me quoting Wolfcrow and conjecturing based on his opinion and the fact that some like yourself feel line skipped 4K can be made to look close to HQ 4K with just a bit of sharpening. Its interesting that on the one hand, I have some R5 users says that the R5 4K is the best, with amazing detail above and beyond other cameras 4K. Yet on the other hand, it is barely indistinguishable from line skipped 4K with just a hint of shaprening. 🤔🤔 The two views are contradictory. So either line skipped can't be so easily matched with sharpening or there is something wrong with 4K HQ. This is what Wolfcrow was on about in his blog on comparing the two. He was was questioning the same thing. Maybe downsampled 4K from 8K isn't quite as good as we are being led to believe.

A lot of misconceptions here. I don't own the S1H. I am looking to add a fullframe camera to my range and currently looking at Nikon, Sony, Canon and Panasonic. Each have their strengths and flaws. I was seriously looking at the R5 and R6 before this fiasco. Panasonic chief flaw is their AF and as gimbal use is a chief requirement for any fullframe camera I buy; it is a major concern for me, despite its superior features, and why I hesitate to go for it. I saw the video you posted. I saw no detailed landscape shots. Just the same shot of the model with background out of foucs at various levels of depth of field, depending on aperture. All shots cut very quickly and shot in soft light, with OOF background to help sell the argument. I saw nothing like a 100% cityscape and landscape shot in the video you posted. Care to share the timecode for the shot you speak of... I am not after specs.. if I was I may have fallen into the trap of the R5 which promised specs but gave us poor usablity both in recording and the codecs used for editing. The R5 falls far shot of being usable for videos, aside from AF and IBIS, the latter which is wobbly at wide angles and why I have fallen out of love with IBIS after using it on the GH5. Again I ask, if the downsampled 4K from 8K is so detailed, how can it be so easily matched to line skipped with just a bit of sharpening. Even Wolfcrow had this to say about HQ vs standard 4K, taken from a link on his big Youtube review of the R5: "There is definitely a difference, and 4K HQ is objectively better. However, I can hardly see a major difference in resolution in HQ. There is a difference between resolution and sharpness. You can add sharpness later, but resolution cannot be created. At 100% the difference exists, but it’s too small to fret about. I’m really not sure the 4K HQ mode is true downsampled 8K, because the dissimilarity is striking. I don’t know why 4K HQ mode is this bad, when it should be a lot better." Which adds weight to my question to you? Why is downsampled 4K so bad, that line skipped 4K can so easily match it? As for grading, it depends on the type of grading.. what you're doing with the image and how professionally you colour grade. I tend to push it harder and a soft line skipped file doesn't cut it. I want a good image to start with, not soft mush. My clients don't pixel peep, I do. That's why they pay me. I don't pay a mechanic to fix a car so it looks okay by my ill-informed standards, I pay them so it looks good by theirs. That's why you use a Professional. If I fell into the trap of down grading my work because of clients poor knowledge of video, I would be a poor videographer and professional. Justifying the R5 with talk of Ninja is apologists talk. Its frankly insulting to suggest buying an external recorder just to get unlimited recording of proper fullframe 4K.

Yet another awful comparison video. Last one was just as bad. Let's compare how sharp and detail an image is by having a lovely softly lit focus of a face with the background heavily out of focus... 🤔 Very insightful... Canons 1080p in their older cameras was often soft, but you rarely noticed it in faces, only in wider shots like cityscapes and Countryside scenery. My very old Canon 60d used to capture detail very well when covering close ups of people, but point it at the countryside and that detail fell apart. If you have any tests, where there is like an abundance of detail, I'll look at it seriously. The crop 4K is the one you spoke of. The S35 crop to get unlimited recording of HQ 4K. I'd rather buy a S35 camera and save some money. If the fullframe look is so important to this camera, then the S35 crop for HQ 4K is unacceptable. If sharpened line skipped 4K is so comparable to 4K downsampled from 8K, it makes a lie of anyone who boasts of its incredible detail compared to cameras recording 4K with a 4K sensor like the A7sIII. Maybe because the AA filter is spoiling the detail you would otherwise get. Sure the R5 has unique features, but frankly so do other cameras. Does it output RAW at unlimited recording, does it offer unlimited 4K downsampled from a larger sensor. Is it Netflix approved. Look theres already 3 features of the S1H it fails to match. The R5 is only of value to me if those unique features you speak of matter to my work. If they dont, then they count for little if the cons restrict the use I would buy the camera for. Line skipped 4K is okay to use, but would be impractical for my filming, where I do a lot of grading and adjusting of the image and need a strong naturaly detailed image I can work with and not something you have to artificially sharpen to give the illusion of good detail.

It costs considerably more than that in the UK and for that price, you get cropped 4K at HQ - not fullframe, normal 4K which still looks rubbish even when sharpened judging by samples I saw, 4K over an external recorder, which defeats weather sealing, ease of hand holding and portability. 3 things I would buy this camera for. Plus some lovely video modes I would love to use but can't. I also get codecs that are hard to edit, a crap micro HDMI port, no dual card recording, and no RAW output via HDMI, something the competition provides. What a bargain... 🤔

What sensors do Fuji use as their AF is better than Panasonic. What about the sensors used by Nikon?

A guy shot 8K video in Paris and was surprised it overheated on a day shoot as he was filming only short clips. He had to leave it overnight to cool down. It wasn't a review, just a report on real world use. For short, personal work and work where line skipped 4K is fine, the R5 will be okay. I wouldn't pay £4k for a smoking gun for a camera and rely on it for Professional work. Regardless of any reports from those who have managed to grab some footage from it. Something which I never doubted. Even Canon wouldn't dare release a camera you couldnt film anything at all.

I'm a Wedding shooter and use Panasonic GH cameras and the Pocket cameras. So I've had to get use to no or crap AF. Ideally I want a fullframe with good AF, mainly for gimbal shots. The R6 is ideal except for poor codec and non DCI. If it didn't overheat, I could live with the other 2 cons for me, but overheat worries me. This S5 interests me. I would like to see the price and then decide if AF is that important to me. It wouldn't be a main camera. If it has weather sealing and focuses as well as a GH5s, I could cope. I've never had a camera with great AF and what you've never had, you've never missed. I can live with 30 min clip limit. What makes the R6 a concern is that the clip limit will be heat dependant and on how much you use it. I don't have to decide now and by then the R6 will have been widely circulated. Everyone is fixed on the R5 at the moment with their tests. Its little brother gets no attention at all. At the moment, the S5 specs are rumour. I'll follow the eventual announcement with interest.

Panasonic needs to nail AF. Its the worst of the lot and regardless whether you need it, its a feature that some mark as essential for their work and be a deal breaker for those looking at the camera. No 24p in 10 bit... why? What is it with manufacturers targeting 24p as something to cripple the camera with. 24p, 25p and 30p recording in all modes should be basic features. I can't see the logic.

I use DCI all the time. It not being on my GH5 at 25p is a real annoyance. I can't understand why its not. R6 apparently has a sensor capable of DCI but doesn't. There are extra pixels to play with on the A7sIII. Its things like this that make looking at hybrids for video work frustrating.

Is it my imagination, but has rolling shutter got a lot better in camera models released this year.

Canon has more consistent overheating, issues, which is software regulated, so they have to publish some figures in the manual to address this, as you do get visible countdowns before you hit record; but if it is controlled too much by software, and we feel this is also being used to limit the camera or cripple it as many would say, rather than just protect it as it should, then clearly people will be annoyed. With Sony, I feel it is more random, and less regulated by software. No countdown timer, so no official figures to drawer upon. With the A7siii still in the preproduction phase rather than out now, its harder to known the full extent of the problem. I've seen inconsistent reports, some are done with no overheating, and a few that have. Recovery time seems to be shorter, which is the real issue of the Canon. When it comes out, I would expect greater focus on the issues, as happens with all camera releases. Though every indication is that its less severe than Canon.

Been shooting 4K professionally since 2014. No I don't have a big budget, but it is viable for me. One moment you're touting the 8K on the R5 and the next, you're saying shoot 1080p. Its a real roller coaster with you.

If only Canon told us this when they first announced the camera at the start of the year. Instead of all this lovely news of 8K and 120fps 4K, and how it would unlock our filmaking, they had instead simply said - "And if you can get any video with this camera, its a bonus."