Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

[rickynorris]

I have my gh4, but would certainly like to have the gh5 around for it.

[Davey]

On 20/03/2017 at 3:05 AM, webrunner5 said:

Ignore this - stuck on my phone from a week ago and can't reply to anybody until it has cleared.

7 hours ago, Gregormannschaft said:

COYS.

Sounds like a cricked neck problem, given his filming style.

[Stab]

I have received my GH5 today! First tests look great. Huge improvement over the GH3

Question. When I opened the package and held the GH5 in my hands for the first time, I realized it makes a noise when I move or shake the camera. Just tested again, and I stil hear it. No it's not the strap holders :P

It's coming from deep within the camera. Now it could be the IBIS system or whatever that can move, but I just wanted to make sure I don't have a faulty unit.

Does your's make any noise when you shake the camera, without lens?

 

[zetty]

6 minutes ago, Stab said:

Question. When I opened the package and held the GH5 in my hands for the first time, I realized it makes a noise when I move or shake the camera. Just tested again, and I stil hear it. No it's not the strap holders :P It's coming from deep within the camera. Now it could be the IBIS system or whatever that can move, but I just wanted to make sure I don't have a faulty unit.

It must be IBIS, they even warn about it in the manual. There is some noise in mine as well, even if I hold the strap connectors in place while shaking it.

BTW, reminds me I'll have to remove those..

[Stab]

5 minutes ago, zetty said:

It must be IBIS, they even warn about it in the manual.

Haha oh yea I see it now! Thanks. Good to know.

[Don Kotlos]

22 minutes ago, Stab said:

I have received my GH5 today! First tests look great. Huge improvement over the GH3

Question. When I opened the package and held the GH5 in my hands for the first time, I realized it makes a noise when I move or shake the camera. Just tested again, and I stil hear it. No it's not the strap holders :P

It's coming from deep within the camera. Now it could be the IBIS system or whatever that can move, but I just wanted to make sure I don't have a faulty unit.

Does your's make any noise when you shake the camera, without lens?

 

Olympus cameras have the same noise. Its the IBIS. The sensor assembly is kept in position mainly with electromagnets that don't operate when the camera is off. The design by Sony uses strong magnets which stabilize the sensor even when the camera is off and there is no noise.

[Stab]

Ah great explanation Don Kotlos.

One more mystery to solve regarding the IBIS.

I currently have this understanding of it, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
There are 3 modes to use image stabilization.

- Anti shake and jitter (the one with the hand symbol)
- E-Stabilzation for Video (uses the full IBIS system)
- Dual IS (combination of IBIS and IOS)

Now I'm using a Speed Booster and a Sigma 18-35 so the Dual IS isn't possible for me.

The Anti-shake stabilization, with the hand symbol, should work fine in video mode as well right? To eliminate jitters? It doesn't need any input about focal length and it doesn't induce extra crop. So this is great if it works. Will do some tests this week.

Then there's the full IBIS for video which is called e-stabilization. It says in the manual that this 'might induce an additional crop' or zoom. For me it certainly does. Because of the manual, unsupported lens? I have tried to enter the correct focal length but this has no effect on the additional crop. Which is pretty substantial if you ask me.

I have did some walking tests and I wasn't very happily surprised by the results. It was warping all over the place in the corners. Much like Warp Stabilizer.
Anyone experience similar results? I'm sure if you just stand still it will work fine, but walking or moving with this setup was pretty messy.

Last question. The IBIS asks for input about focal length cause it doesn't recognize my lens. Let's say I use the Sigma at 18 mm with a 0.64x Speed Booster. Would the correct input be 11.5 mm?

Thanks guys. Just trying to sort things out.

 

 

[Fritz Pierre]

2 hours ago, Stab said:

I have received my GH5 today! First tests look great. Huge improvement over the GH3

Question. When I opened the package and held the GH5 in my hands for the first time, I realized it makes a noise when I move or shake the camera. Just tested again, and I stil hear it. No it's not the strap holders :P

It's coming from deep within the camera. Now it could be the IBIS system or whatever that can move, but I just wanted to make sure I don't have a faulty unit.

Does your's make any noise when you shake the camera, without lens?

 

Though I don't have my GH 5 yet, I remember the Barry Green book I bought with my Panasonic HVX200....on the very first page of The HVX Handbook were the words "that noise you hear inside the camera when you move it and it's turned off, is normal"..,my guess would be it's the stabilizer in the GH5.

[Don Kotlos]

1 hour ago, Stab said:

- Anti shake and jitter (the one with the hand symbol)
- E-Stabilzation for Video (uses the full IBIS system)
- Dual IS (combination of IBIS and IOS)

Now I'm using a Speed Booster and a Sigma 18-35 so the Dual IS isn't possible for me.

The Anti-shake stabilization, with the hand symbol, should work fine in video mode as well right? To eliminate jitters?

I don't have the camera so I am not sure what the Anti-shake stabilization actually reflects, but my guess would be the IBIS in which case the answer would be yes.

Quote

It doesn't need any input about focal length and it doesn't induce extra crop. So this is great if it works. Will do some tests this week.

Any stabilization (lens based, sensor based or electronic) should require the focal length information whether that is manually or automatically registered. 

Quote

Then there's the full IBIS for video which is called e-stabilization. It says in the manual that this 'might induce an additional crop' or zoom. For me it certainly does. Because of the manual, unsupported lens? I have tried to enter the correct focal length but this has no effect on the additional crop. Which is pretty substantial if you ask me.

The crop with electronic stabilization should not depend on the focal length. It usually is a standard % of the image that corresponds to the range of corrections that are possible.

Quote

I have did some walking tests and I wasn't very happily surprised by the results. It was warping all over the place in the corners. Much like Warp Stabilizer.
Anyone experience similar results? I'm sure if you just stand still it will work fine, but walking or moving with this setup was pretty messy.

Electronic stabilization can indeed give you warping artifacts. It is generally avoided unless you really (really) need it. It can work great though if the shot is relatively static and in turn when the necessary motion correction range very small. But with that said, some NLEs offer similar stabilization that could perform just as well even though they don't have information about the focal length or the acceleration of the camera, but just extract the motion information from the video itself. 

Quote

Last question. The IBIS asks for input about focal length cause it doesn't recognize my lens. Let's say I use the Sigma at 18 mm with a 0.64x Speed Booster. Would the correct input be 11.5 mm?

Yes you should enter the corrected focal length (11.5mm). Thats all the information that the camera needs in order to translate the acceleration information into sensor shifts. Relevant points: 1.Sensor size has no role in this so the correction would be the same whether the sensor is 4/3s or 35mm 2.Smart adaptors with electronic lenses should automatically transmit the focal length in which case you either wouldn't be able to enter it or it would n't be taken into account. 

 

[Emanuel]

 

[Davey]

8 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

 

Gorgeous. Nice pacing. Do you have a link to the Kessler dolly and or slider you used?

[Emanuel]

5 minutes ago, Davey said:

Gorgeous. Nice pacing. Do you have a link to the Kessler dolly and or slider you used?

Sorry, not mine. I am at the same side of you. Just share the same opinion, so to have posted the link here :-)

[jonpais]

Hugh Brownstone decides the GH5 is a keeper. Here he does low light tests. Unlike so many of these talking heads whose faces look like magenta marshmallow blobs (99% of what I've seen here), Hugh at least has enough respect for his audience to correctly light, expose, and white balance his face. I can't really take many of these other reviewers seriously when they don't even know the very basics of photography. And yes, I will be getting the GH5.

 

[Michael Ma]

25 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Hugh Brownstone decides the GH5 is a keeper. Here he does low light tests. Unlike so many of these talking heads whose faces look like magenta marshmallow blobs (99% of what I've seen here), Hugh at least has enough respect for his audience to correctly light, expose, and white balance his face. I can't really take many of these other reviewers seriously when they don't even know the very basics of photography. And yes, I will be getting the GH5.

 

 

 

I really like this guy's videos.  If somebody is taking a magnifying glass to the dark shadow areas the image, the real failure is the composition of the shot.  Noise only becomes a problem when it steals away focus from the message.  ISO 6400 is clean enough where it should never happen.  At 12800, I think it the composition needs to be strong for things like b-roll.

[jonpais]

45 minutes ago, Michael Ma said:

I really like this guy's videos.  If somebody is taking a magnifying glass to the dark shadow areas the image, the real failure is the composition of the shot.  Noise only becomes a problem when it steals away focus from the message.  ISO 6400 is clean enough where it should never happen.  At 12800, I think it the composition needs to be strong for things like b-roll.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by composition - composition of which shot? "Composition needs to be strong at ISO 12800" - could you clarify this for us a bit? ?

[Michael Ma]

14 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by composition - composition of which shot? "Composition needs to be strong at ISO 12800" - could you clarify this for us a bit? ?

 

 

Where the director wants you to focus on when looking at the image rather than your eyes hunting for meaning, subject, bright spots of the image.  When the subject or narrative is not clear, the eyes will wander looking at extraneous detail such as sharpness, noise, etc.

[jonpais]

5 minutes ago, Michael Ma said:

Where the director wants you to focus on when looking at the image rather than your eyes hunting for meaning, subject, bright spots of the image.  When the subject or narrative is not clear, the eyes will wander looking at extraneous detail such as sharpness, noise, etc.

Got it! ? If the content is engaging, people nitpick less. Unless the defects are glaring anyhow. Back in 1998 I think it was, when I saw the Danish film Festen (Celebration), shot on DV, one of the ugliest looking images I'd ever seen, but to this day, among the most powerful films in my experience. 

[Emanuel]

12 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Got it! ? If the content is engaging, people nitpick less. Unless the defects are glaring anyhow. Back in 1998 I think it was, when I saw the Danish film Festen (Celebration), shot on DV, one of the ugliest looking images I'd ever seen, but to this day, among the most powerful films in my experience. 

Matching dramaturgy, Thomas Vinterberg used the clever technique to downgrade the video acquisition down to the point everything else can shine when compared to. Exactly the same effect when shallow DOF seemed high def when wide shots on SD were lacking enough definition to properly resolve anything in the landscape.

[Matt Holder]

35 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Matching dramaturgy, Thomas Vinterberg used the clever technique to downgrade the video acquisition down to the point everything else can shine when compared to. Exactly the same effect when shallow DOF seemed high def when wide shots on SD were lacking enough definition to properly resolve anything in the landscape.

This trick works brilliantly with the 120fps on the gh4 - shoot shallow DOF (12-35 at f2.8 or 25 Voigtlander near wide open) and it looks great- and the codec doesn't have to work too hard to create sharps across the whole frame. 

[Fredrik Lyhne]

5 hours ago, jonpais said:

Hugh Brownstone decides the GH5 is a keeper. Here he does low light tests. Unlike so many of these talking heads whose faces look like magenta marshmallow blobs (99% of what I've seen here), Hugh at least has enough respect for his audience to correctly light, expose, and white balance his face. I can't really take many of these other reviewers seriously when they don't even know the very basics of photography. And yes, I will be getting the GH5.

 

I decide it's a keeper too!! Christmas came early in Norway for once and I got my camera yesterday. Gonna play with it today and do some light testing. The screen and viewfinder is very nice! And look at that Leica lens @jonpais