gh4, g7 or g80?

[vulgatron]

Hi everyone,

Just got a year long project shooting interviews and documentary/events. 

I currently have a Lumix GX85 and sold my RX10mk2 since I couldn't get enough defocus background to intercut with full frame cameras in some projects.

So after considering different options I thought the best one for me will be going m43 with speed booster (Chinese version) and Nikon lens, and also since I already own a GX85 I could easily match picture profiles to intercut.

Had my mind on the G80, since it's possible I'll be doing handheld stuff but the stabilisations problems this cam has made me consider the G7 or even the GH4, and leave all the handheld stuff with the GX85. My question is, is it worth it to get a second hand GH4 nowadays? Is the G7 or G80 image better image and color wise?

Would like a better slowmotion feature than 60p (not for this job) but after considering many options not sure there's a camera that offers all I need and that is on my budget (around 1k).

4K not strictly necessary, but is a nice feature in order to crop and get close ups and pans during interviews.

Also do you think that with the speed booster and the 35 1.8 / 50 1.8 Nikon lens I could get close to a full frame look? Was considering APS-C cams and boosters but I'm not convinced since the only option I think there is is the A6300 and the heating issues won't be good for interviews. 

Any other recommendation I might have missed? Although I would like to have a 2 cam setup I could consider selling the GX85 to increase budget for new equipment if worth it.

Appreciate any input

[ThomHaig]

Hey. yeah the G7 / GH4 / G80 all have different advantages and disadvantages.

I've owned a G7 for a while, and think it's incredible value for money. However in comparison to your GX85 I think all it offers is a mic input and the Cine D / V picture profiles.

I wanted to pick up a second panasonic body, and was also choosing between the G80 and a 2nd hand GH4. I actually went for the GH4, when I found a good deal on one. The headphone jack is useful for me, as I'll be shooting some casual interviews / vox pops with a minimal set up. It's nice to have the 98fps slow motion option too, though the image quality does suffer in this mode. The lack of stabilisation is a disadvantage, for sure. I figured I'd get a lens with stabilisation for now, for the times I want to shoot handheld.

The G80 with those Nikon Primes & speedbooster should be capable of capturing nice look images, I imagine. One thing to look out for- If you're planning on using Nikon G primes (like the 35mm f1.8) on a speedbooster, make sure you use a speedbooster with it's own aperture. I don't think you'll be able to close down the lens aperture since it's done electronically on Nikon Gs. I know the Metabones Nikon - MFT does this (though is expensive) - I think Fotodiox do one with an aperture also. Since you're looking to use un-stabilised primes, the G80's stabilisation will be of a huge benefit shooting handheld. I've seen Panasonic are looking to update the firmware to improve the stabilisation at some point hopefully soon. The G80's rolling shutter is significantly worse than that of the GH4 (& the G7), for what it's worth. The iso performance is also slightly better on the G7 / G80 over the GH4.

Sadly there's no clear winner. On paper the GH5 looks like it might be best of both and more, but there's no indication as to when it'll be out, and it will cost significantly more than either of these options. Hope that's of some help!

 

[vulgatron]

Thanks for your input Thom, just found a GH4 + stabilised zoom for a good price, might jump on that... not sure still though.

I had no idea about the Nikon G lens, I assumed all Nikon lenses worked with the Zhongyi Lens Turbo, I know it has a ring to control the exposure, but I thought it controlled the lens directly. If that's not the case I'll have to re-plan everything!

 

[aldolega]

You don't need a booster/adapter with an aperture, per se- meaning, its own iris. There were adapters like that a few years ago for EF lenses. You just need one with an aperture ring, which interfaces with the aperture lever that sticks out of the back of Nikon lenses (even G lenses). Metabones have these, as does the Lens Turbo II, which is the only decent cheap booster.

Personally, I am side-grading from a GH4 to a G85, for the IBIS and better high-ISO performance. Well, I will be once they issue the firmware fix for the IBIS...

[vulgatron]

Thanks aldolega, that's what I thought with the adapters, but then again I wasnt sure about the G series and made me doubt.

If thats's the case I think is the best option to adapt different lenses and get closer to that "full frame look".

I believe I'm leaning towards the G85 as well, since I'll be exactly the same sensor as the GX85 which will be my second camera. Plus if I'm planning in getting the cheap booster the sensor stabilisation will come in handy (if they fix it!).

Now I just have to decide if I get de kit with 12-60 or the 14-140, but that's a different story...

[John_Harrison]

I'm also stuck between the G80 and the GH4. How different is the color / dynamic range between cameras? 

Has V-Log been improved since it was first released? The reviews I've heard are pretty mixed. 

[IronFilm]

On 11/11/2016 at 0:57 AM, vulgatron said:

I currently have a Lumix GX85 and sold my RX10mk2 since I couldn't get enough defocus background to intercut with full frame cameras in some projects.

 

I'd use the RX10 for only the telephoto / close up shots, as at 200mm f2.8 you should have quite nice shallow DoF

[jonpais]

17 hours ago, vulgatron said:

Now I just have to decide if I get de kit with 12-60 or the 14-140, but that's a different story...

Any particular reason you're considering either of these two variable aperture zooms? 

[Cinegain]

Oh, I'd do that too. Always good value to get a lens with a body (I just about did that with every camera I bought that had a kit version availlable). You can usually sell it for what it costs on its own, so why not give it a try. Might turn out rather beneficial for stills shooting, but also for video the on-the-fly flexibility and dual IS are two solid ones. You don't have to zoom when filming, I use a zoomlens as multiple primes, so between shots I can pick different focal lengths (do have to set things accordingly of course), so the variable aperture in that case isn't a biggie. It's just convenient not having to swap out lenses. If you're shooting an event during daytime, you might not care about the sensitivity all that much anyways. But of course in all these regards a f/2.8 throughout is very nice to have.

[vulgatron]

14 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I'd use the RX10 for only the telephoto / close up shots, as at 200mm f2.8 you should have quite nice shallow DoF

That's what I was doing, but then for a projects where I need to intercut with full frame telephotos there was a big difference, so I'm hoping I can get closer to that with a speed booster and a 2.8 tele which will end up being an f2.0 or something around that.

 

8 hours ago, jonpais said:

Any particular reason you're considering either of these two variable aperture zooms? 

Basically because that's the option I have if I get the G80, I'm in Spain I couldn't find a body only option, so I have to get one of the kits. 

The 12-60 should give me a good range, was planning on getting that one and maybe selling the 12-32 to get the 12-35 f2.8,

But then again since I'll be travelling and getting shots around the extra range on both lenses might be useful. 

Any suggestions?

[jonpais]

First of all, there is something shady about not offering a 'body only' option, but it is what it is. What if you've already got a kit lens? Some here say you can always sell the kit lens for a good price on eBay, but I've never tried, so I have no idea. For me, selling shit I don't need on eBay is a hassle I just don't want to deal with.

Furthermore, I simply don't buy the idea of a universal zoom because of all the compromises involved. Number one is the variable aperture, which again, many forum members don't seem to mind, but it drives me batty. But that's just me. If for example, you have a zoom where the telephoto end starts at f/5.6, you pretty much have only one setting at which the picture will stand a reasonable chance of being critically sharp. You can't open up any wider, and if you close down, diffraction destroys the resolution. Would you purchase a prime lens which only had one aperture at which images were acceptably sharp? In the case of the Panasonic 12-60mm, the lens has been optimized for the wide end, meaning that from 25-60mm, the image will not be as sharp. It also means you won't be able to throw the background out-of-focus quite as easily as with a constant aperture zoom like the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8. And at all apertures, the 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 in particular is not going to deliver edge-to-edge sharpness. Yet I often place the subject at the edges of the frame.

And even though the 12-60mm doesn't cost a king's ransom, you're still paying for features like OIS, which in this case, is rather mediocre, a couple stops at best. 

I love lenses: your camera is only as good as the glass you stick in front of that sensor. A good lens is one you never want to remove from the camera body.  Which is why, if I felt compelled to buy Panasonic lenses, in your case, I would be looking at maybe the 20mm f/1.7 or other moderately fast primes (though I've never used one, I'm just going by the cost and user reviews). Third party manufacturers like Sigma also offer some extremely good inexpensive AF primes for micro 4/3. If the rationale is you don't want to keep changing lenses, there are several great non-interchangeable lens cameras by Sony and Panasonic.

Here are some screen grabs from a clip I posted recently where the subject is not in the center of the frame:

These were all taken at f/2.8 with the Nocticron 42.5mm. Now, if you were shooting with the 12-60, you couldn't have shot these at f/2.8, but you could get f/5.6. Yet the image would have over 20 lines per mm less sharpness at that focal length, which is huge. I'm not by any means suggesting you spend $1,400 on a lens, but investing in some primes like the ones I mentioned above will give you much better results.

Finally, if you are interested at all in getting anything resembling the 'full frame' look, by which I assume you mean throwing the background out of focus, shooting at f/5.6 or f/8 isn't going to cut it.

[vulgatron]

12 hours ago, jonpais said:

First of all, there is something shady about not offering a 'body only' option, but it is what it is. What if you've already got a kit lens? Some here say you can always sell the kit lens for a good price on eBay, but I've never tried, so I have no idea. For me, selling shit I don't need on eBay is a hassle I just don't want to deal with.

Furthermore, I simply don't buy the idea of a universal zoom because of all the compromises involved. Number one is the variable aperture, which again, many forum members don't seem to mind, but it drives me batty. But that's just me. If for example, you have a zoom where the telephoto end starts at f/5.6, you pretty much have only one setting at which the picture will stand a reasonable chance of being critically sharp. You can't open up any wider, and if you close down, diffraction destroys the resolution. Would you purchase a prime lens which only had one aperture at which images were acceptably sharp? In the case of the Panasonic 12-60mm, the lens has been optimized for the wide end, meaning that from 25-60mm, the image will not be as sharp. It also means you won't be able to throw the background out-of-focus quite as easily as with a constant aperture zoom like the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8. And at all apertures, the 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 in particular is not going to deliver edge-to-edge sharpness. Yet I often place the subject at the edges of the frame.

And even though the 12-60mm doesn't cost a king's ransom, you're still paying for features like OIS, which in this case, is rather mediocre, a couple stops at best. 

I love lenses: your camera is only as good as the glass you stick in front of that sensor. A good lens is one you never want to remove from the camera body.  Which is why, if I felt compelled to buy Panasonic lenses, in your case, I would be looking at maybe the 20mm f/1.7 or other moderately fast primes (though I've never used one, I'm just going by the cost and user reviews). Third party manufacturers like Sigma also offer some extremely good inexpensive AF primes for micro 4/3. If the rationale is you don't want to keep changing lenses, there are several great non-interchangeable lens cameras by Sony and Panasonic.

Here are some screen grabs from a clip I posted recently where the subject is not in the center of the frame:

These were all taken at f/2.8 with the Nocticron 42.5mm. Now, if you were shooting with the 12-60, you couldn't have shot these at f/2.8, but you could get f/5.6. Yet the image would have over 20 lines per mm less sharpness at that focal length, which is huge. I'm not by any means suggesting you spend $1,400 on a lens, but investing in some primes like the ones I mentioned above will give you much better results.

Finally, if you are interested at all in getting anything resembling the 'full frame' look, by which I assume you mean throwing the background out of focus, shooting at f/5.6 or f/8 isn't going to cut it.

Thanks for your input Jon. Finally I've found a dealer that offered a body only option, but at the end for an extra 100€ I've bought the kit with the 12-60 and the grip.

I agree with what you say about the zoom lens, I just thought that travelling it might be useful to have an allrounder lens, and then use Nikon primes with the speed booster for interviews interiors and more planned stuff. Ideally I would get the sigma 18-35 but I can't afford it right now, but that's my idea use fast primes and then maybe an old and cheap Nikon 100mm f2.8 or similar for the tele stuff when I need it.

So for now, I have the Panasonic 25 1.7 for the gx85, the 12-60 for the G80, thinking on selling the 12-32,  and I'm about to get a "lens turbo" and a Nikon 50 1.4 or 1.8 depending on what I find around... that's a start lets see how it goes!

[jonpais]

@vulgatron I was just trying to talk myself out of getting the kit lens.  

[vulgatron]

12 hours ago, jonpais said:

@vulgatron I was just trying to talk myself out of getting the kit lens.  

Now I really get it