Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

[Mattias Burling]

6 minutes ago, Brother said:

Hasn't this been the case of every camera release?

People get their hopes up when it's announced -> people get disappointed when they see pre production samples by a tiny group of people -> People get excited once again when the masses get the hold of the camera.

I'm sure you can get your GH4 footage to look non organic, over sharpened and over processed.

Yup, pre launch and promotional footage is always very contrasty and straight from camera. And every time its forgotten and people say "To video" and "Crushed Blacks".

Every time, for every new camera, forever.

[hyalinejim]

Just download some VLog footage and check out how organic it can look:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/nu2l117hjj4hjpq/Neumann_Films_Lumix_GH5_180fps_Footage.zip

Emmanuel Pampuri Night Shots (download original)

Emmanuel Pampuri nice girl and flowers (download original)

 

[DBounce]

10 hours ago, tweak said:

Did you even watch the videos you quoted? The second is anamorphic  .

My bad, didn't read the description and thought it was just cropped. Hard to tell in that static scene. Does this desqueeze in camera for framing, or is an external monitor required?

[jonpais]

Another problem with many of the videos we've seen is they're shot with the slow kit lens. Disagree with me if you like, it's just my opinion, but professionals shouldn't be shooting with an f/4 kit lens. Especially with a tiny sensor like m43. Okay, if you're going to be shooting at f/8 all the time, there's no point in buying fast expensive glass because they're probably identical when stopped down that far. So if you only shoot in good light and like nice, crisp, sharp, detailed, distracting backgrounds in your portraiture, event photography, wedding shoots or whatever you do, go ahead and get the kit lens. On the other hand, if you like some separation between the subject and the background; if you love pleasing bokeh; and yes, much higher resolution, I'd go with some faster glass. That could mean fast primes such as the Leica Nocticron or the Olympus 75mm, the Voigtlander Noktons, or adapted lenses and a Speed Booster. From reading comments in the forums, it sounds like many are basing their decision to get the kit lens based on dual IS compatibilty, which to me (again, just my opinion!) is a shame, because I've already shot plenty with non-stabilized lenses on the G85 and they're rock steady. That nice bokeh, the ability to shoot in low light, are far more important to me than squeezing out an extra 1/2 stop of stabilization. 

[Phil A]

31 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Another problem with many of the videos we've seen is they're shot with the slow kit lens. Disagree with me if you like, it's just my opinion, but professionals shouldn't be shooting with an f/4 kit lens. Especially with a tiny sensor like m43. Okay, if you're going to be shooting at f/8 all the time, there's no point in buying fast expensive glass because they're probably identical when stopped down that far. So if you only shoot in good light and like nice, crisp, sharp, detailed, distracting backgrounds in your portraiture, event photography, wedding shoots or whatever you do, go ahead and get the kit lens. On the other hand, if you like some separation between the subject and the background; if you love pleasing bokeh; and yes, much higher resolution, I'd go with some faster glass. That could mean fast primes such as the Leica Nocticron or the Olympus 75mm, the Voigtlander Noktons, or adapted lenses and a Speed Booster. From reading comments in the forums, it sounds like many are basing their decision to get the kit lens based on dual IS compatibilty, which to me (again, just my opinion!) is a shame, because I've already shot plenty with non-stabilized lenses on the G85 and they're rock steady. That nice bokeh, the ability to shoot in low light, are far more important to me than squeezing out an extra 1/2 stop of stabilization. 

Just earlier today I read a bit on Roger Deakins forum where people asked him about preferred lens choices. His answer was spherical lenses, as free from aberrations as possible (shall we say clinical?), shooting around f/8 in daylight. So you could shoot that kit zoom and even stop down.

The problem is: most of those teaser videos (plus probably most things we here on this forum produce) have no set design and no sophisticated color grading fitting to the topic/mood and especially basically 0 content.

This doesn't add any value to this discussion but lately I have a bit of a disinterest in the discussions here because, as people already mentioned here over the recent time, we will never be happy with the technology. But it's because we want to use superior technology to help with certain lack in our skills.

9 out of 10 people on this forum don't need any new gear but better cinematography / set design / production / post-production skills. I'm one of them. Shoot me.

[jonpais]

48 minutes ago, Phil A said:

Just earlier today I read a bit on Roger Deakins forum where people asked him about preferred lens choices. His answer was spherical lenses, as free from aberrations as possible (shall we say clinical?), shooting around f/8 in daylight. So you could shoot that kit zoom and even stop down.

The problem is: most of those teaser videos (plus probably most things we here on this forum produce) have no set design and no sophisticated color grading fitting to the topic/mood and especially basically 0 content.

This doesn't add any value to this discussion but lately I have a bit of a disinterest in the discussions here because, as people already mentioned here over the recent time, we will never be happy with the technology. But it's because we want to use superior technology to help with certain lack in our skills.

9 out of 10 people on this forum don't need any new gear but better cinematography / set design / production / post-production skills. I'm one of them. Shoot me.

Agree with you about the content part. And about not needing new gear, with a difference. I'm guessing a good number of us need new gear, but not necessarily a new camera body. That could mean better glass, some LED lights, some C-stands, reflectors, better microphones or whatever. But Roger Deakins isn't talking about shooting with a kit lens, nor is he talking about shooting on a m43 sensor: at f/8, diffraction is already noticeably destroying the image. He's talking about shooting on Cooke or other fine cinema glass with at least a super 35 sensor. Finally, Roger Deakins doesn't shoot weddings or portraiture for a living. If you're shooting a Hollywood spectacle where you've got gladiators duking it out in a coliseum on a sweltering hot summer day and you want everything in focus, I suppose you'd choose a wide angle lens and stop down. FWIW, Roger Deakins dislikes zooms and prefers fast primes. 

This is from an interview at Arri News

RD: The performance seems very much the same. I first tried the Master Primes on NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007) and I've used them ever since. I was thinking about why you would need such fast lenses when the ALEXA itself is so fast, but a lot of the night scenes on IN TIME were shot virtually wide open with the Master Primes and we did the same thing on SKYFALL. I use them because they're the fastest, cleanest lenses that I've come across. I always shoot on prime lenses rather than a zoom; I dislike zooms unless they are actually being used as a zoom.

Anyhow, with fast glass, you always have the option of stopping down, say for some street work or environmental portraiture. But slow lenses can't be opened up any wider than their maximum aperture of f/4 or whatever. That means having to shoot at higher ISOs, and with small sensors, that introduces noise.

[Inazuma]

@jonpais did you not like the stuff Neumann made?

[jonpais]

17 minutes ago, Inazuma said:

@jonpais did you not like the stuff Neumann made?

If you squint, you can see his secret weapon in the corner.  

[Fritz Pierre]

2 hours ago, Inazuma said:

@jonpais did you not like the stuff Neumann made?

Does that not seem like several lifetimes ago?...the only thing getting worse here, is not the images from the camera, but the thread itself!...personally I decided after the 1st or 2nd video clip out of the camera, but am continuing to read the thread with morbid curiosity I suppose

Also I think the reason Deakins or any other DPs are shooting at such high T stops is they have an entire film to get through...M4/3 is not a tiny sensor....it is almost S35...when you have to get between 1 to 2 minutes of USABLE footage in the can in a day of shooting...in the process of making a 2 1/2 hour film and it's your name on the slate as the DP, you make sure every day counts and you produce...for Cinematographers making a feature film with a $100,000 a day crew, the sweet spot is somewhere be T4 & T8...

[Neumann Films]

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

If you squint, you can see his secret weapon in the corner.  

None of the shots from the "launch video" were with the anamorphics...although I really wish we would/could have.

[Phil A]

@jonpais Totally have to agree with the importance of those investments. All the professionals know it but amateurs like to ignore it. Blowing 500€ on sound equipment is seen as kind of a waste (even though that's actually rather cheap entry level) despite the fact that it would improve their creation by a lot more than being able to shoot 120 instead of 96 fps. Same for light.

[tweak]

9 hours ago, DBounce said:

My bad, didn't read the description and thought it was just cropped. Hard to tell in that static scene. Does this desqueeze in camera for framing, or is an external monitor required?

Pretty sure you need a monitor to de-squeeze (you did with GH4).

[hyalinejim]

Has this been posted?

 

Not even sure if it's genuine GH5 footage, but it did make me chuckle.

[jonpais]

5 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Does that not seem like several lifetimes ago?...the only thing getting worse here, is not the images from the camera, but the thread itself!...personally I decided after the 1st or 2nd video clip out of the camera, but am continuing to read the thread with morbid curiosity I suppose

Also I think the reason Deakins or any other DPs are shooting at such high T stops is they have an entire film to get through...M4/3 is not a tiny sensor....it is almost S35...when you have to get between 1 to 2 minutes of USABLE footage in the can in a day of shooting...in the process of making a 2 1/2 hour film and it's your name on the slate as the DP, you make sure every day counts and you produce...for Cinematographers making a feature film with a $100,000 a day crew, the sweet spot is somewhere be T4 & T8...

Lenses have aperture rings (or not!) for a reason. For one thing, it is their remarkable speed that enables lenses like the Nokton 25mm f/0.95 to attain record-breaking resolution when stopped down. For another, if you're shooting a variable aperture universal zoom, say an f/3.5-5.6, that means that at the telephoto end, you've only got one or two apertures to choose from before diffraction ruins the image. Would anyone purchase a $1,000 prime that could only shoot at f/5.6? When someone like Roger Deakens is shooting a film, they have powerful lights, if you're an event photographer, you don't always have that luxury. And with an enormous sensor like m43, the sure way to add noise to your images is to shoot at small apertures and crank up the ISO. When someone tries to defend the choice of purchasing a slow lens by citing as an example that Kubrick or whoever usually shoots at f/5.6 or f/8, that just makes you look silly. Did you even bother to read Roger Deakins's interview, where he says in no uncertain terms that he prefers fast primes to zooms? And when a Panasonic representative claims, as one does in one of the videos, that the kit lens is all you need because the low light of the GH5 is so great (my paraphrase, ok?), that is just ridiculous. I've already stated my reasons why fast primes are preferable to slow zooms for m43: you have the choice to shoot wide open or not; since m43 sensors are more prone to noise at high ISOs, shooting with fast glass will allow a cleaner image;  you have more control over how much depth of field there is in your image, and more. And yes, many of the videos I've seen here would have benefitted from shooting with a fast prime rather than the kit lens (with the exception of the Kowa), if not for the entire clip, then at least in parts. Tossing all artistic value completely aside for a moment, many of the videos posted here are not even accomplished on a technical level. I don't want an engineer testing the camera - I want a photographer - and photographer doesn't mean just anybody who can point and shoot - it implies not only technical expertise, but also a keen aesthetic sense. Panasonic doesn't appoint ambassadors based on their vast technical acumen, but on their artistic merit.

[webrunner5]

I agree with your points, but the problem is DoF. That is why m4/3 sort of sucks is the Lack of DoF. So you buy these fast primes and shoot at 0.95, 1.8, hell what are you going to get in focus? And the Speed Boosters even make it worse. Yeah you end up with close to a s35 sensor size, but you don't buy one to shoot at f8. You buy them to shoot at 0.75, 0.95. Jesus. I know, you just can't win with them, you are screwed with lack of DoF, and you are screwed with Diffraction. In reality they are not that great to use.

It sucks, it really does.  Then they are not great at high ISO, and if you aren't rolling in the dough, your lighting equipment sucks ass. No good answer if you don't have big bucks. 

I don't know, maybe the answer is to buy older used pro gear like the Sony F3, Canon C100, FF gear like the Sony A7s, Canon 5D mkIII, etc, etc., hell I don't know

 

[Fritz Pierre]

32 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Lenses have aperture rings (or not!) for a reason. For one thing, it is their remarkable speed that enables lenses like the Nokton 25mm f/0.95 to attain record-breaking resolution when stopped down. For another, if you're shooting a variable aperture universal zoom, say an f/3.5-5.6, that means that at the telephoto end, you've only got one or two apertures to choose from before diffraction ruins the image. Would anyone purchase a $1,000 prime that could only shoot at f/5.6? When someone like Roger Deakens is shooting a film, they have powerful lights, if you're an event photographer, you don't always have that luxury. And with an enormous sensor like m43, the sure way to add noise to your images is to shoot at small apertures and crank up the ISO. When someone tries to defend the choice of purchasing a slow lens by citing as an example that Kubrick or whoever usually shoots at f/5.6 or f/8, that just makes you look silly. Did you even bother to read Roger Deakins's interview, where he says in no uncertain terms that he prefers fast primes to zooms? And when a Panasonic representative claims, as one does in one of the videos, that the kit lens is all you need because the low light of the GH5 is so great (my paraphrase, ok?), that is just ridiculous. I've already stated my reasons why fast primes are preferable to slow zooms for m43: you have the choice to shoot wide open or not; since m43 sensors are more prone to noise at high ISOs, shooting with fast glass will allow a cleaner image;  you have more control over how much depth of field there is in your image, and more. And yes, many of the videos I've seen here would have benefitted from shooting with a fast prime rather than the kit lens (with the exception of the Kowa), if not for the entire clip, then at least in parts. Tossing all artistic value completely aside for a moment, many of the videos posted here are not even accomplished on a technical level. I don't want an engineer testing the camera - I want a photographer - and photographer doesn't mean just anybody who can point and shoot - it implies not only technical expertise, but also a keen aesthetic sense. Panasonic doesn't appoint ambassadors based on their vast technical acumen, but on their artistic merit.

Do you refer to the Leica f2.8 12-60 mm as a kit lens?...just curious...I referred only to feature films in my post...I did not read Deakins' interview...I have a 5 year  old instead of Deakins' interviews keeping me busy....I've been interested in a lot of DP's though for their style and choices, especially John Mathieson as his style in capturing both action....sci-Fi and drama....and of course....they use lights and large crews....so the one man band sceanario is obviously quite different....both have been discussed to exhaustion on this forum and I personally own some very fast glass too....so obviously....a time and place for anything...and I've seen beautiful footage from you shot with fast glass...anyway....just a guess but if Deakins opens up a fast prime shooting a scene in No Country for Old Men or whatever, it's probably a wide lens where infinity starts  very close to the camera and no focus concerns are present....have'nt read the Kubrick post you mentioned, though have to say I've never seen anything bad shot by Kubrick...personally I own nothing slower than a 2.8....perhaps you can refer us to the post where the guy justified buying slow lenses based on Kubrick aperture choices....

 

[dbp]

I don't think m43 is that bad for DoF. Although it does vary I suppose. I forget how big the GH4 crop is in UHD.  I always think the bmpcc crop is bad, but the GH4 isn't much better.  GH2, on the other hand, is actually pretty good at 1.86 or whatever it was.

At least the native m43 are pretty sharp wide open. So you can get alot of them to be quite usable at f1.4-2. 

I think a lot of movies live in the 2.8-4 range, so it's not that far off in reality. 

[webrunner5]

Yeah but yeah you have the "Equivalence" thingy to help a bit I know. 2.8-4 is in reality really 5.6-8 on a m4/3 camera without a SB. But that can hurt also. And at f8 you are getting into diffraction territory. It is hard to win with using m4/3 with video. No great  DoF, bad low light ability, diffraction, not the worlds best auto focus. Although MF solves that, but is not always good.

But the GH5 maybe a bit better in low light and AF, fingers crossed. There is a reason s35 is sort of the 800 pound Gorilla for digital video, and even 35, 70mm for film.

[dbp]

No I meant, you can use 1.4 to 2 pretty reasonably on m43, to get into the equivalent 2.8-4 range, since many of the good native m43 lenses are sharp wide open. 

[jonpais]

15 minutes ago, dbp said:

No I meant, you can use 1.4 to 2 pretty reasonably on m43, to get into the equivalent 2.8-4 range, since many of the good native m43 lenses are sharp wide open. 

The most recent example being the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 that Andrew mentions in his review of the Olympus OMD E-M1 Mkii. It is sharp center to edge wide open, and while it never breaks any resolution records, it is perhaps one of the most uniformly sharp across the board of any m43 lens.