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

[roxics]

2 hours ago, 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.

Panasonic are in a perfect place to introduce two lens line-ups to one camera system.

A dual 2x crop and 1.5x crop system. Small portable M43 lenses and larger coverage S35 glass.

If not then we can just sit here and watch Micro Four Thirds die in a market place where you can buy a full frame camera for under $900 with lenses as small as the FE 55mm.

Also the RX1R II's optics matched with sensor proves that full frame does not automatically mean massive lenses. The lens on that camera is smaller than most Micro Four Thirds primes.

The fact is it is the 2x crop which hurts the GH4 most on the market where it competes with full frame and APS-C Sony cameras, also it is sold into a filmmaking would where 2x crop is a compete NON-STANDARD and Super 35mm is a match for APS-C. Sorry but that makes no sense, Panasonic.

I read the whole article before first responding. But I still disagree. Like I said before, full frame and APS-C existed before Panasonic and Olympus consciously made the choice to build a smaller m43 system. They did this to reduce size of all components and carve out a niche for themselves. Now you're asking them to confuse their niche. They're already competing just fine and GH4 sales are good. They can continue this with a 60fps GH5 and 10-bit internal. Those two alone will sell the next camera to a lot of people. Let's say they dd this tomorrow, who else on the market is offering you a 4K 60p 10-bit camera for under $2000? Will Sony catch up, sure. But that's just the nature of the game. That's why you don't pick cameras based on the latest specs but the one that works for you when you need it. 

Again, adding a S35 sensor is just going to upset people who are already invested in m43 glass. Because now they can't get the most out of their new camera with their investment in m43 lenses. Which will make them not want to invest further in m43 lenses going forward. If Panasonic makes APS-C lenses as premium glass, that just fragments a system that doesn't need to be fragmented. The only reason APS-C DSLRs exist is because Canon and Nikon needed to find a way to get better yields on their sensors in the early days when making full frame sensors was a lot more expensive and more prone to error on the larger waffers. So they fragmented out of necessity. M43 doesn't need to go this route and I don't think they will. Nor do I think they will become irrelevant if they don't.   

What you're looking for is a cheaper/smaller Varicam. That's what you should be asking them to make. Not disrupt their m43 line.      

1 hour ago, araucaria said:

I just want to point out that if you made equivalent lenses to those they sell for m43 for a mirrorless fullframe camera, they would be just as small.

No they would not. Larger sensors require a larger circle of confusion which requires larger glass elements to retain certain speeds. Why do you think 16mm lenses are smaller and medium format lenses are bigger?   

[dr_jon]

2 hours ago, 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.

Panasonic are in a perfect place to introduce two lens line-ups to one camera system.

A dual 2x crop and 1.5x crop system. Small portable M43 lenses and larger coverage S35 glass.

If not then we can just sit here and watch Micro Four Thirds die in a market place where you can buy a full frame camera for under $900 with lenses as small as the FE 55mm.

Also the RX1R II's optics matched with sensor proves that full frame does not automatically mean massive lenses. The lens on that camera is smaller than most Micro Four Thirds primes.

The fact is it is the 2x crop which hurts the GH4 most on the market where it competes with full frame and APS-C Sony cameras, also it is sold into a filmmaking would where 2x crop is a compete NON-STANDARD and Super 35mm is a match for APS-C. Sorry but that makes no sense, Panasonic.

I'm afraid I struggle to see the business case here. Panasonic aren't doing that well selling cameras (in Japan they are now selling less mirrorless than Canon) and new lenses just trickle out. I doubt anyone inside Panasonic sees throwing lots of money into an all-new camera system as likely to be a winner, especially in a generally declining market. I think they only sell a decent number of GH4s as it offers a lot for the money and is stills and video. No way will videographer sales (if they effectively ditch the stills side by only having 8MP with m43 lenses) get them back that money at similar prices on a new format. I think if they go to a different sensor size they will have to use 3rd party lenses (developing their own being an unlikely investment), so whose mount would be possible - Canon EF maybe using the V35 sensor (4096x2160)? Won't be any good for stills. Plus sounds tricky to avoid damaging higher-margin V35 LT sales... I can't see it. To do your suggestion at a minimum they'll need someone else to have designed a sensor just for this camera and to be happy about low sales volumes for that sensor (which usually means prices that drive 5-figure camera pricing, so they've pretty much just designed the V35 LT again).

P.S. I read your whole article before coming to the forum for my first post on the subject.

[Videomasterstudio HD]

On 12.02.2016 at 10:44 AM, Israel Romero Ramirez said:

I would be glad to have the next things on a gh5

 

-5K ... I don't mind the 6k... though... I still prefere the 4k but lets see if they can do 5k.  but with virable frame rate from 2f  up to 24...

-4k  - 60 fps?  90?

2k -  90?  120?

BUT FROM 2 FPS to WHATEVER THEY WANT...

-12 BIT  PLEASE! PLEASE PLEASE! for the odyssey!

 

I'm just curious. most of dslr's do not overpass 700 lines of video resolution in full hd, 1300 in uhd/4k due to high compression, video processor performance and lens limitations. So why do you want 4, 5, 6 k in a dslr that shots a most 1600lines(vertically and horizontally), like lumix g7 in 4K?!? DSLR's need a better codec(h265), higher bitrate(150-200mbs), better proccesing, better lens, 10-12bits in colour sampling...

[Cas1]

From a youtuber / journalism / film making perspective I think the following features would yield the most IQ progress:

- Global shutter,

- 4k 60p

- 4k 10bit 422, 200Mbit recording

- Full sensor read out downscaled to 4k

- NX1 level of focussing + tracking.

- Auto iso in manual mode

- + 1 stop in DR and iso.

- 5x IBIS would be nice too.

I like the idea of an oversized and/or multi aspect sensor.

A cinema lens set would be cool too.

Great to see so many responses here. I wonder if Panasonic employees actually read along.

[Nikkor]

1 hour ago, roxics said:

No they would not. Larger sensors require a larger circle of confusion which requires larger glass elements to retain certain speeds. Why do you think 16mm lenses are smaller and medium format lenses are bigger?   

A 25mm 1.4 m43 lens is equivalent to a 50mm 2.8 lens on fullframe, both will give the same image and boh are tiny lenses. If you think otherwise I can't/want help you.

 

[mercer]

Interesting thread. I think it would be smart of Panasonic to not try and emulate Sony's path. But I agree some very specific upgrades are in order. History has proven that Panasonic acknowledges that the video market is a good portion of their GH line sales, so a few video centric upgrades could really help to set them apart from Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc...

If anything, I would like to see Panasonic going after Blackmagic sales. Give us the GH version of the Pocket cam with  4K downscaled in MP4 and 60p at 2x crop and compressed Raw Full HD... Even with a larger crop... Actually I would prefer it, as it would open up more lens possibilities with c-mount lenses. 

[DipCone]

If I'm being realistic, I think a few reasonable updates would keep Panasonic in the game. 

Some sort of IS (even dual IS) that works well in video mode. I think the dual IS is an specially shrewd move because it forces you to use Panasonic lenses. Which, let's be honest will always be part of their plan.

A version of the Dual Native ISO that's in the new Varicam. Even a dumbed down version (second ISO starting at 3200?) would address low light shooting.

At least one more stop of dynamic range with VLOG.

The general improvements that come with a new sensor/processor w/more MP, maybe 60p 4K, 120FPS slo mo.

For me, these changes alone seem doable (most are things Panasonic has already implemented somewhere), would keep the price reasonable and would get me to upgrade. With the general size benefits and price advantage of M43 I think they'd sell tons.  

The only competition (in the current price range) would be the new Sony 6300. But keep in mind Panasonic has things like better codecs, flip/touch screen, more video features etc. Sony also only really focuses on their full frame stuff, so the 6300 doesn't have the great, small, fast lenses in the M43 line. 

So I think a few improvements would still separate it from the pack. 

 

 

[roxics]

6 hours ago, araucaria said:

A 25mm 1.4 m43 lens is equivalent to a 50mm 2.8 lens on fullframe, both will give the same image and boh are tiny lenses. If you think otherwise I can't/want help you.

 

Yes. But unless it's a macro lens, a 50mm is typically f1.8, f1.4 or f1. So to complete with other lenses in the market from other companies those new Panasonic super35mm lenses would need to also be f1.8, 1.4 or f1. Thus bigger. 
 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

10 hours ago, araucaria said:

A 25mm 1.4 m43 lens is equivalent to a 50mm 2.8 lens on fullframe, both will give the same image and boh are tiny lenses. If you think otherwise I can't/want help you.

 

No, a 50mm f/2.8 will be two stops darker than a 25mm f/1.4. Same depth of field, but that's it. 

The lens size advantage is indisputable. And it's not just sensor size; it's aspect ratio. Designing a lens with good edges and corners becomes much easier with a squarer aspect ratio, and requires a much smaller image circle.

The G7 has already improved 1-1.5 stops in noise performance from the GH4. If the GH5 sensor offers any noise improvement at all over the G7, we're looking at a usable ISO 3200, which is more than enough for me.

I don't understand how you can argue that m4/3 isn't a standard. Of course it is. We have 6 different manufacturers making lenses for it. And with a simple speed booster, you increase your low light performance by 1 stop and gain a s35 sensor with Canon or Nikon mount. Sounds plenty standard to me.

M4/3 offers lots of advantages. Smaller, better-corrected lenses, faster fps, lower rolling shutter, broader dof, less overheating, better battery life, a 4:3 aspect ratio for anamorphic shooting, easier to process higher bit depths, etc. And if its performance in stills isn't enough for you, nothing made before 2006 must've been either. It's only a half stop behind APS-C in every metric. And though their sensor tech has stalled a bit, m4/3 will perform as well in 3 years as APS-C does now; at that point, I'd target have the reduced size and weight than a fractional bump in IQ.

Also, keep in mind that we have no idea what we want. I mean none at all. After the GH2, what did everyone ask for? Better low-light, DR, color science, build quality, bitrate/codec, and menus. What did the GH3 deliver? Every single one of those improvements...yet everyone panned it as a minor step forward because the spec sheet didn't wow them. 

Here's what I want. 

-1 stop increase in noise from the G7.

- reduce the crop factor to the native 2x, or bring back the multi-aspect sensor for 1.86x (APS-H with the speed booster)

-1 stop increase in DR

-V-LOG, with view assist and the green/magenta blocking issue fixed

- anamorphic de-squeeze

-10-bit internal recording, and a 200mbps 8-bit option

- dual card slots (It'd be cool if you could record to both slots simultaneously, or your big files to one slot and 1080p proxies to the other, but that's dreaming)

-A full sized HDMI port. There's room, and it would make external recording much easier and more reliable. 

-a better implemented YAGH brick than can run on 2 GH4 batteries

I feel like that's an attainable wish list and a compelling enough tool to keep people on board until the next big leap. I'd buy one.

[dr_jon]

4 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

No, a 50mm f/2.8 will be two stops darker than a 25mm f/1.4. Same depth of field, but that's it. 

 

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.

[Nikkor]

35 minutes ago, dr_jon said:

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.

That's way too complicated, I don't understand that, it must be a lie.

[gsenroc]

16 hours ago, araucaria said:

A 25mm 1.4 m43 lens is equivalent to a 50mm 2.8 lens on fullframe, both will give the same image and boh are tiny lenses. If you think otherwise I can't/want help you.

 

I think roxics was talking about the lenses with same max. aperture.

From your points I can say something though. You gain a shallow dof with larger sensor on F2.8 already, but it's 50mm, doubles the distance between the focal plane and the lens. We can make the lens smaller by using a compact optics design (Tessar in this case), nice. On the other hand, if we need F1.4 on MFT to achieve the same dof, we don't use Tessar anymore, we need Double Gauss. It becomes about the same size as 50mm Tessar on full frame or even larger, but it gives four times the light, and the Double Gauss has better optical performance.

They all have tradeoffs, that's principle of optics, can't really argue about that.

[Nikkor]

14 minutes ago, gsenroc said:

It becomes about the same size as Tessar or even larger, but it gives four times the light, and the Double Gauss has better optical performance.

They all have tradeoffs, that's principle of optics, can't really argue about that.

You can make them both double gauss, or whatever you want to invent, the larger 50 2.8 will be about the same size as the 25 1.4, but the quality will be better on the first.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/768816-REG/Panasonic_H_X025_Leica_DG_Summilux_25.html

this one even has aspherical lenses, should make it tiny.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f28-m.htm ("tessar")

Which one is smaller?

What about these 50 2, and 50 1.4?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f2-m.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f14-asph.htm

[berkenboom]

I agree that Super 35mm/APS-C is the way to go for 6/8K. Diffraction would kill the sharpness if Panasonic would stay at 4/3.

But for me the real question is: will the Super 35mm have a 4:3 aspect ratio, or a more video friendly 3:2 ratio?

[dr_jon]

10 minutes ago, berkenboom said:

I agree that Super 35mm/APS-C is the way to go for 6/8K. Diffraction would kill the sharpness if Panasonic would stay at 4/3.

But for me the real question is: will the Super 35mm have a 4:3 aspect ratio, or a more video friendly 3:2 ratio?

If you're delivering a 4k image, as the article suggested (downscaling 6k, not producing 6k) diffraction isn't that much of a problem. At f8 (so equivalent to f16 DoF on FF - that's plenty, yes?) the blur caused by diffraction will be 10.7um diameter (regardless of format, plus generally, although not evenly, declining towards the edges). This will begin to get noticeable at pixel sizes under about 5.35um, but will only increase slowly (it'll be worse under 3.5um). Taking 4k from a 17.3mm wide (m43) sensor means each video pixel is effectively 4.2um wide. You'll see some diffraction softening, but not much - and that's with a lot of DoF. (You get more softening from debayering the sensor than minor amounts of diffraction.)

[k-robert]

19 hours ago, araucaria said:

A 25mm 1.4 m43 lens is equivalent to a 50mm 2.8 lens on fullframe, both will give the same image and boh are tiny lenses. If you think otherwise I can't/want help you.

 

Equivalent???

1,4 ≠ 2,8

Photography is a lot more than DoF...

[Nikkor]

1 minute ago, k-robert said:

Equivalent???

1,4 ≠ 2,8

Photography is a lot more than DoF... 

Oh thanks for the info man.

[berkenboom]

16 minutes ago, dr_jon said:

If you're delivering a 4k image, as the article suggested (downscaling 6k, not producing 6k) diffraction isn't that much of a problem. At f8 (so equivalent to f16 DoF on FF - that's plenty, yes?) the blur caused by diffraction will be 10.7um diameter (regardless of format, plus generally, although not evenly, declining towards the edges). This will begin to get noticeable at pixel sizes under about 5.35um, but will only increase slowly (it'll be worse under 3.5um). Taking 4k from a 17.3mm wide (m43) sensor means each video pixel is effectively 4.2um wide. You'll see some diffraction softening, but not much - and that's with a lot of DoF. (You get more softening from debayering the sensor than minor amounts of diffraction.)

Here is a graph a made once on the left there is the pixel size.
the dotted lines are the f numbers.
10 um doest leave much room for sharpness (less then 2MP for m43)

[gsenroc]

2 hours ago, araucaria said:

You can make them both double gauss, or whatever you want to invent, the larger 50 2.8 will be about the same size as the 25 1.4, but the quality will be better on the first.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/768816-REG/Panasonic_H_X025_Leica_DG_Summilux_25.html

this one even has aspherical lenses, should make it tiny.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f28-m.htm ("tessar")

Which one is smaller?

What about these 50 2, and 50 1.4?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f2-m.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f14-asph.htm

Making the 50/2.8 into Double Gauss doesn't necessary mean it will be optically better than the Double Gauss 25/1.4. Maybe the 50/2.8 can have higher resolution, but the 25/1.4 has more light. Still a tradeoff, better or not really depends on the design objective, resolution/sharpness etc. are just one of the performance criteria.

Yes it looks compact on Leica lenses, but the MFT ones have focus motors and electronic aperture mechanisms, so you can't just compare to the external dimension. The MFT glass is still a bit smaller in this case, not by much though. We don't know whether the 25/1.4 has implemented some retro-focus mixed optical configuration (probably not), but yea the size is really dependent on the design they choose. Zeiss Milvus 50.1,4 is a good example of how the design can have an impact on the size.

Those Leica lenses are indeed extremely compact, really nice lenses.

BTW,  aspherical glass doesn't make the lens smaller, it only changes the optical performance, small or not is dependent on the overall optical design, as stated above.

[dr_jon]

19 minutes ago, berkenboom said:

Here is a graph a made once on the left there is the pixel size.
the dotted lines are the f numbers.
10 um doest leave much room for sharpness (less then 2MP for m43)

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.