Time to step up - Panasonic GH5 must go 6K Super 35mm to compete in 2016

[TheRenaissanceMan]

As interesting as everyone's half-baked lens rhetoric is, can we get back on topic?

[dr_jon]

56 minutes ago, araucaria said:

 

58 minutes ago, k-robert said:

Equivalent???

1,4 ≠ 2,8

Photography is a lot more than DoF...

 

But they are. A FF f2.8 lens will capture the same amount of light over the image as a m43 f1.4 lens (both wide-open). That also means you get the same shot noise (which is most of the noise in the image). You need to increase the ISO on the FF camera by 2 stops to get the same exposure. However that doesn't affect the noise as (i) most of the noise is in the light and changing the ISO won't change that and (ii) the sensor read noise will usually fall a bit with increasing ISO, so the total noise will be lower if anything. (Think of it this way... at the same illumination level if a f1.4 lens puts 1M photons onto a m43 sensor then a f2.8 lens will put 1M photons onto a FF sensor. Of those photons on average 1,000 will be the shot noise, in both cases.)

Increasing the ISO isn't a problem as the FF sensor will be able to capture around 4x the electrons of the m43 sensor due to its greater size. Increasing ISO by two stops knocks about a factor of 4 off that so it will be about the same as the m43 sensor and not saturate if the m43 sensor doesn't.

Also remember a 50mm f2.8 lens has the same diameter entrance pupil as a 25mm f1.4 lens (17.86mm) so the DoF will be the same at the widest aperture. The FoV will also be the same. Diffraction softening will also occur at the same DoF (it goes with DoF, regardless of format). Hence the minimum and maximum amounts of available DoF are the same.

[dr_jon]

P.S. It seems to me like NHK showed a sub-m43 sized 8k sensor at ISSCC. It has 33MP (8k is 32MP, sensors always have a few more pixels than the active area) and can do full sensor read-out at 240fps (although you then have to get rid of 3W). The pixels are 1.1um (so about 9mm across which is about half m43).

[Tiago Rosa-Rosso]

This would be cool:

- a tiny (500g) body

- FF sensor  

- global and rolling shutter 

- record internally 2.5k pro res 10bit 4.2.2 from 2 fps to 120 fps

- an ibis like olympus 

- a dual pixel af like canon

- 2000 euros price     

[berkenboom]

2 hours ago, dr_jon said:

Am I reading this incorrectly? It seems to agree with me to a decent approximation. The f8 and m43 lines intersect at about 13MP, which is about the 8MP (in a 16:9 crop) needed for 4k.

8MP is 4k indeed. But if Panasonic wants to do 6k readout, or even 8k(~34MP) in the future,the diffraction starts at f4.5, which is limited.
Though looking at the chart again the diffraction is less than I expected, my bad.

 

[dr_jon]

1 hour ago, berkenboom said:

8MP is 4k indeed. But if Panasonic wants to do 6k readout, or even 8k(~34MP) in the future,the diffraction starts at f4.5, which is limited.
Though looking at the chart again the diffraction is less than I expected, my bad.

 

Hey, I swapped f2.8 and f1.4 in one of my posts (although no-one noticed, not that it stopped me going "Duh!" as I spotted it just outside the edit window), so I think I beat you ;-)

Here you go, for people to read and laugh at my ability to go from brain to keyboard...

"Not really, the light per unit area (which is what the f-stop is) will be 2 stops less, but there is 4x (i.e. 2 stops) the area at that illumination level, so the amount of light captured to make the image is the same between the f2.8 on m43 and f1.4 on FF. Also the noise in the light depends on the amount of light you capture, so will also be the same."

[berkenboom]

1 hour ago, dr_jon said:

Hey, I swapped f2.8 and f1.4 in one of my posts (although no-one noticed, not that it stopped me going "Duh!" as I spotted it just outside the edit window), so I think I beat you ;-)

Here you go, for people to read and laugh at my ability to go from brain to keyboard...

"Not really, the light per unit area (which is what the f-stop is) will be 2 stops less, but there is 4x (i.e. 2 stops) the area at that illumination level, so the amount of light captured to make the image is the same between the f2.8 on m43 and f1.4 on FF. Also the noise in the light depends on the amount of light you capture, so will also be the same."

I think you have quoted the wrong person, i didn't mention anything about equivalency

[Jeroen Damen]

I totally like the idea, but i think the current Gh4 is already a winner. I just did a shoot (i make commercials for a living), with the camera with a speedbooster, and a pix recorder on prores LT in 4k, using the v-log profile. I did some lowlight tests and with any lens faster than f2.0, and with the speedbooster xl, i see absolutely no need to go above iso 800. Its a tool, and a very good and cheap one, with remarkable results. This thing is very very good as is now, you just need to use the vlog, a recorder and a speedbooster xl. But its taste also ..

I would like to see from a video pro point of view:

 

- Same price point (1500)

- full 4k 96fps out on HDMI (or at least 1080p)

- a 6g sdi output, but not such an big deal

- build in v-log, with lut output. and fixed 8bit blocking issue

- 10 bit 422 internal recording option, if SD cards could allow it

- better processing, to have da vinci grade noise reduction, or cleaner sensor

- optional xlr ins, or just a slimmer add on box with the 6g sdi etc.

Sure there are better camera's which are more expensive, there are now newer released camera's. But this will always be, 'c'est a vie'. See it what it is at 1500 euro, and it has been around now a bit .. 

[dr_jon]

1 hour ago, berkenboom said:

I think you have quoted the wrong person, i didn't mention anything about equivalency

You were saying "my bad" so I threw in my version too...

(Who knew it would be so tough to poke fun at myself...)

[Hene1]

8 hours ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

This would be cool:

- a tiny (500g) body

- FF sensor  

- global and rolling shutter 

- record internally 2.5k pro res 10bit 4.2.2 from 2 fps to 120 fps

- an ibis like olympus 

- a dual pixel af like canon

- 2000 euros price     

This would also be cool:

- a tiny (300g) body

- medium format sensor

- global and rolling shutter

- record internally 8k pro res 14 bit 4.4.4 from 1 fps to 480 fps (to sd card)

- built in ronin

- 600 euros price

[John 67]

After  having read article again I still do not see any reason why Panasonic would complicate a successful product with such a proposal ...it would be folly to make such a change for what is a very niche sector (essentially a small group of people who can not afford to buy the camera that does everything they want) the capabilities that are stated are available now in much higher end cameras  and I put it to you that 90% of users of gh4 would'nt need these features ...those that would ...are likely to be in a group who would bolt on  thousands £'s worth of Cooke panchro's instead of these new lens products proposed anyway ...the gh4 is available for £900 it was not (in my humble opinion ) intended to compete in the high-end tv or cinema ,the fact that it can and does is a testament to its capability as it stands you can take almost any legacy lens or high end cinema lens and go make a film, a documentary, a wollace and grommit style animation ,anamorphic epic, 4K internal ,4K photo,journalism and the list goes on what Sony does  or does not is bollocks because it's twice the price,it's full frame glass costs more ,it does'nt have the feature set ,menus are hap hazard ,the discussion about the 6300 is irrelevant ,how is it viable to compare a brand new product with a two year old one, Panasonic 4K at that price point, changed the market...everyone reacted ,that means Panasonic are and have been leading ,only now does Sony do 4K internally( at twice the price)....even today you want to beat it you have to buy another pansonic product g7,lx100,

the people making these proposals think nothing of then spending £1200 on a shogun,or an odyssey ,thousands on glass,gimbal's etc ,when at the heart is a£900 camera ,the fact that it's there at the heart seems to carry no credit,go buy a red dragon or an arri alexa ...build that up see what that costs (house money). All it has to do is minor improvements, the question is will they be big enough for existing users to warrant the upgrade, and there are a lot of us ...their sole motivation should be that

[Cinegain]

Ehm, I think your overestimating the part of users that use this for stills primarily (or at least the '90% of users of gh4 would'nt need these features'). To me it makes hardly any sense to buy the GH4 if you're hardly interested in its more advanced video capabilities (Olympus seems a far better choice for stills, or even other Panasonics like the GX8, or the G7(0) if you want stills but 4K as well, because should you shoot video at some point, you want the latest and greatest, it's still a numbers game that gets some people to play). Thats the thing it does, that is what they've come to push the GH-range for. It's being used for aerial video, on many productions as alternative angle/B-cam and even as A-cam. With the BLEGH-unit released along beside the GH4, how can you deny it's not just a small market that cares about the video on the GH-range. That IS its market. And they've done great with it too. Panasonic US even puts pressure on the folks in charge overseas to give it more advanced features and make it more suitable at pro level, just take this recent talk on shooting anamorphic with Matt Frazer:

Just now with fierce competition, mainly Blackmagic and Sony... myself, heavily invested in the MFT system, I will probably be going with the A6300 next... I can still see me using the E-M1 for stills (IBIS with primes especially, compact and pretty), but for video I've come to appreciate the performance and aesthetics of the APS-C D5300.

Now, Sony has a very adaptable system, the S35 crop makes it easier to find and use wide angle lenses in comparison with MFT, smart adapters and focal reducers getting close to fullframe, making it easier to create a shallow depth of field, which often contributes to a filmic look. Not to mention the better performance when using it at and above ISO800, especially with the new sensor tech. I bet everyone would appreciate more usable ISO1600 and ISO3200. ISO6400 even perhaps. As well as the other tech feats. So Panasonic needs to make it be worth it, which is going to be tough, especially if they really will take their time and not release it this year, with people switching away... so yeah, I'm not so sure about that ('All it has to do is minor improvements').

[IronFilm]

On 12/02/2016 at 1:19 AM, Andrew Reid said:

Exactly.

This thread has been an interesting marketing lesson for Panasonic!

It shows that if they put an over-sized sensor in there then the perception will be that they are dumping Micro Four Thirds standard, even if per my article (which nobody read) they are actually keeping it.

Perception is everything. Which is exactly why they will NOT do this.

They closest they might go is if they make a very low end Varicam with a S35 sensor but a m43 mount. But I'll doubt they'll do that and cheapen the Varicam brand. But I dunno, Sony has already done this to their CineAlta brand so it might happen. 

[Nathan Gabriel]

Obviously the gh4 is near and dear to many people's hearts. It also seems like they'd feel abandoned by Panasonic if a s35 sensor was introduced even if the sensor supported the old lenses. Let's not forget that a great part of the gh4 was it's body being the same as the gh3, backwards compatibility plays well with budget minded customers. A larger sensor might benefit noise and low light, but not much else. And many people have suggested  great improvement ideas that don't require a larger sensor (global shutter is my favorite). Instead of wondering how they can compete with Sony, which mostly exists at a different price point and customer base, I wonder how the can better compete at their economy price point. Why did Mad Max use an Olympus and Blackmagic cameras instead of Panasonics? It definitely wasn't because of low light noise or 6k. Panasonic customers interested in video are not going to go for headline specs, they are intelligent enough to see the camera as a whole. Given all the flame on this topic, I think Panasonic can rely on some brand loyalty also. The gh4 isn't going to be obsolete anytime soon. If the gh5 hits the right price point, doesn't estrange it's current customers and offers at least one nominal improvement over the gh4, I think it will sell just fine.

[John 67]

Apologies...when I said 90% users would'nt use these features I meant the additional feature set that was being proposed , I considered that people would find it more convenient to switch to another system, I consider that Andrew reed's opinion does carry some weight with manufacturers,Panasonic included ....I suspect ( rightly or wrongly ) that we would not have anamorphic in the gh4 without his Input..... how many actual anamorphic projects other than camera tests and experiments are actually completed ...it would be interesting to know... my suspicion is that the proposal being made would have a similar real world take up, I like this camera I use it maybe 2/3rds photo and 1/3rd video...someone with mr reed's influence could see the camera changed , but it could drive up the cost of the camera for a feature set used by a minority,perhaps even change the camera negatively for the majority of users ,perhaps I am wrong in this assumption but if you need a £400 speed booster in any configuration on a £900 camera should'nt you be buying a camera with a larger sensor?....after reading my last post I believe perhaps I may have come across a little more forthright than intended if anyone felt that ...then I apologise...

Sorry Andrew "Reid" for spelling your name wrong

[John 67]

Just to finish my rant...my idea of minor improvements .....120fps or better (clean) ,higher usable iso , 50/60p 4K ,is 10bit 4K possible in camera, perhaps anamorphic desqueeze, yag box in its current form is too expensive ,someone suggested  the ability for it to house 2current size batteries aswell as or instead of that xlr power point?

[Cinegain]

Quote

should'nt you be buying a camera with a larger sensor?

Oh for sure. APS-C sounds fine!

So why a GH4 over the A7SII or A7RII for example? Well, first of all: yes, the price. Sure, we'd all be shooting ARRI Alexa XT and Alexa Minis if we had the budget to run our operations like that, but if you're starting out at an indie level, you kinda hope to achieve a whole lot with a whole little. And that's where the folks at Panasonic have found themselves a real market. You can spend the money you saved on more important stuff like lenses, lighting, audio and talented people... To stick with saving on a camera... the A7RII does really well at S35... why not just buy a S35 camera to begin with and save a few pennies that could be put to better use?

The new Canon and Nikon flagships are fullframe and do 4K, do they set the bar? Well, here as well. Not exacty in everybody's ballpark financially speaking! And they must be great for shooting stills and fun as hybrid cameras, but since they rely heavily on the traditional DSLR approach, they're not really optimized for video use... besides, there's video crops there too. The 1D C does things well, but still doesn't have all the mirrorless gizmos. I think the times where we'd pick up cameras like the T2i/550D, 7D and 5D are long gone.

Ok, so back to fullframe and then mirrorless with Sony. You could get a 2nd hand A7S, that shouldn't set you back too much? True. Why did people ultimately go and pick-up an A7S? Because if you're running and gunning things you won't be setting up much lighting at all. The A7S excells at lowlight. That's the main issue with micro four thirds, the performance just isn't quite there. Everybody tries to avoid cranking up the ISO above ISO800. With an A7S you crank it up to in the thousands and just not care. That's a huge benefit. The A7S is fullframe, there's no muliplying the crop factor, so your wide lenses stay wide. Additionally fullframe enables you to more easily get a shallow depth of field, again, something that people would say contributes to a filmic look. Bitdata usually is better and more accurate too when you increase the pixel surface, allowing it to gather more light, although we haven't really seen any of that back in the colors, which require some work with both Panasonic and Sony.

So... sounds like things are in the favor of the A7S over the GH4? Depends on what you're going for. Let's first take a look at how we might go about getting the GH4 more up to A7S level... we could make the image brighter by concentrating light onto the smaller sensor by use of one of these speedboosters, lens turbos, focal reducers, whatchamacallit. This also helps with creating a shallower depth of field. Better... still not there by a long shot though. So what's the point, then? Well, the real power I think Micro Four Thirds has is the size of the system. Not so much in physical size of the camera itself perhaps as it's a no smaller of a camera than the A7s, but as a system, combined with the lenses to go with the sensor inside. To cover that A7S sensor you got to bring serious glass with serious coverage. Besides, serious lenses ask for serious prices too. The GH4 gives you a really discrete low profile camera to shoot with, be it with an affordable pancake lens or quality Vedyra Mini Prime cinema lens, not drawing too much attention, or just being able to cram it in every nook and cranny... or fit it underneath an aerial platform. Yet at the same time it's an enough of a powerhouse to behave well when fully rigged up in frankenstein fashion. For example rigged up with rods, follow focus system, matte box, external monitor/recorder, audio, V-lock battery, speedbooster, Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D. It's just so multi purpose. And... you can really grow with your camera. As we've seen you can even try out some anamorphic stuff.

Then... what do you have to complain about anyways? You seem happy enough. Why not settle for minor improvements? Well, yeah, I'm very grateful to have something like availlable to us. But at the same time... we were still not able to bridge to gap in performance or get that really shallow depth of field. Now... the Nikon D5300 showed us that it's not a stretch to get nice organic rendering and great quality 1080p out of APS-C. And the look's just right somehow. Actually, not somehow. APS-C translates to S35. Guess what that before mentioned ARRI Alexa XT shoots at? You betcha, S35! One of the reasons people fell in love with the Samsung NX1. S35 and nice organic colors! The A5100 and A6000... APS-C too, yet, not the Sony mirrorless cameras known for their breakthrough video features, although the effecient XAVC-S was a nice touch. However, with their new A6300 they take everything people liked about its bigger sensored brothers and crammed it into the APS-C mirrorless body... perhaps with a few exceptions like in-body stabilization. Still though, internal 4K. The A7S didn't even do that. There's some new sensor tech inside which should mean it should perform nicely... better than MFT, still short of its fullframe brothers. It can do the same trick as the Panasonic though, concentrate light onto the smaller sensor for better performance and increased capability of creating shallow depth ot field. The A7RII has a great S35 crop mode, if it's anything like the performance there, it's more than enough for most people! It just sounds like it will leave the GH4 eating dust... that's all I'm saying.

Just about the bigger APS-C sensor? Well, again, taking the ARRI XT as an example... you know what some of its keypoints are? Film-like, organic look, High Dynamic Range, Sharp, natural images for HD, 2K, 4K UHD or 4K Cine deliverables, High sensitivity, ARRI color science, Multiple in-camera recording options, ARRIRAW, Apple ProRes, DNxHD, Two independent HD-SDI outputs... sounds familliar? Some of these points remind of Blackmagic cameras as well. BMD Pocket Cinema Camera, Micro Cinema Camera, options at around a 1000 bucks. Along the lines of the GH4 that is. So, no, it's not just fighting APS-C, it's fighting the same Micro Four Thirds standard for other aspects that are appreciated for good video.

What stops you from buying an A6300 or BMD Micro Cinema Camera? Well, exactly, nothing. Except the change from MFT to APS-C might not be so easy when you're heavily invested in native MFT glass. The BMD Micro Cinema Camera just doesn't do 4K, so that could be a reason to pass up on it, yet it has some of the features that makes an ARRI camera an ARRI camera... it's film-like, has that organic look, high dynamic range, sharp, natural images, decent color science, RAW/ProRes recording, which is worth something. And let's not forget optional global shutter mode! The A6300 gives you that performance boost and has those great features. It will provide that S35 look or even goes overboard with a focal reducer attached. So the question really becomes... what will Panasonic do to keep you from buying any of these? Well, that's why I said 'Panasonic needs to make it be worth it, which is going to be tough, especially if they really will take their time and not release it this year, with people switching away... so yeah'. Like I said, I still have the E-M1 as well, so I won't just part with my collection of native lenses just yet and the GH5 might up things enough to ditch the A6300 again (which I will initially primarily adapt Nikon mounted lenses to)... but it has to be more than a minor improvement. They'll have to pull out all the stops and really go for it. I don't understand why people would get this camera if they don't want its video features, so yeah, maybe there shouldn't be a GH5, or atleast, not in the capacity we're talking about here. Maybe they should brand it Varicam already. The Panasonic DMC-VC5, because the GH-range is more than just another addition to the G-string of stills cameras. You want a camera that does stills and still has some fun 4K video features without spending the money on getting too serious, get yourself something else. A G7 or so.

Anyways. Time will tell. And different opinions and insights aren't a bad thing.

[fuzzynormal]

57 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

Anyways. Time will tell. And different opinions and insights aren't a bad thing.

Your straw man sounds like me, actually.

As it is, I'd really like to get a 4K consumer cam that shoots 60p.  If only because one of my client likes that frame rate.  Otherwise I wouldn't care too much about it.  Although, slow-mo @4k would be nice.

 

[Tiago Rosa-Rosso]

I don't agree with you. First 8k makes the workflow very heavy second the medium format lenses are more expensive and difficult to find.  The rest would be fine. 14bit 444 prores would be cool but I believe you would need cfast for that. Of course all of this is still very utopic.

[Nathan Gabriel]

On 2/14/2016 at 9:55 AM, berkenboom said:

8MP is 4k indeed. But if Panasonic wants to do 6k readout, or even 8k(~34MP) in the future,the diffraction starts at f4.5, which is limited.
Though looking at the chart again the diffraction is less than I expected, my bad.

 

I'm just wondering about your chart because I don't understand these things at all. Is the diffraction inherent in the optics out is it possible some new sensor technology can give better results?