Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

[SuperSet]

Well, that settles that. 

[Ken Ross]

Not for me, because that's surely not the results I've gotten. I think if 100 owners posted perfect AF results, some would still fall back on Max's test. I wonder why Max gets the worst results of anyone I've read?

[zmarty]

57 minutes ago, Hanriverprod said:

Max goes over main af settings for 30 minutes. TLDW - conclusion, use manual focus.

After watching the entire video there is no other way to describe this other than damning for the autofocus system in the GH5. The egregious real life examples are in the second half of the video. I promise it is worth your time to view it all.

[sanveer]

Apparently the new AF system is quite complicated. Panasonic should document everything more clearly and make a few more videos, explicitly explaining how to deal with AF.

[jonpais]

6 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

So here's a test of the GH5's AF. I used the 709 Profile, 14-140 lens and center area AF. Focus was set for CAF to see if any hunting occurred and if so, to what degree. I've shot in this same mall with the Sony A6300 & A7Rii with results that weren't as good. At times these other cameras would lock on to areas and objects behind the subject. 

Given all the things I've read on some sites, the AF has been far better than I expected. I've really had excellent success. Yes, if you look closely you'll see a bit of hunting in a couple of clips, but nothing really disturbing. If I wasn't testing the AF, but still wanted to use AF, I would probably have used 'lock on AF'. 

 

Ken - I've been doing a field test this week at the Saigon Central Post office of the Fuji 50mm f/2 with the Fuji X-T2 mounted on the Crane gimbal - practically identical subject matter   - and it looks like some of the handheld shots here have just about the same amount of jitter as mine. Are you seeing it, or is it just me? Sorry to nitpick.

[funkyou86]

I was on a documentary shoot yesterday, again and at the end I decided to go with the 12-35 f2.8 for the B-roll with dual IS + AF. I did not set anything before the shoot, just popped on the lens, scrubbed trough the menu to activate focus and that was is. I was shocked. The dual IS was a lifesaver, all my gear, the slider, the tripod, the rigs were packed in to the car, so even with handheld I pulled off great tracking shots and slider-like shots. The CF worked okay, not as a 6500 but kept the focus on my subject all the time. I never thought about investing to MFT glass, but after this experience I am definitely getting a 25mm and a 45mm lens. Will do my best to upload some samples next week.

[jonpais]

I don't know - Max spent the better part of a day using many different settings under different lighting conditions and couldn't get it to work, so I trust him the most. It's the most comprehensive look at the GH5 AF-C I've seen so far. For gimbal work, which begins at around 13'54" in Max's video, the best you could do is use AF-S. The only way anyone could convince me otherwise is to do the exact same testing with the same procedures - same frame rates, same shutter speeds, same settings - and prove Max is mistaken. But I don't think that's going to happen. And honestly, I don't care. 

C'mon, notice my hand. please!

[Inazuma]

Max's gh5 or lens may have been buggy. I have seen much better AF by other youtubers

[jonpais]

12 minutes ago, Inazuma said:

Max's gh5 or lens may have been buggy. I have seen much better AF by other youtubers

But he tested two lenses. 12-35mm f/2.8 v.1 noticeably smoother than v.2 at 24p. Were both of them buggy? Sebastian - those videos you watched - were any of them as comprehensive as Max's tests? He can't be accused of bias - just listen to his closing remarks. He spent over ten hours just testing the AF settings. I don't think there's a single reviewer out there who's done such a thorough examination of just one aspect of the GH5.

[jonpais]

8 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Hmmm... which film stock was this? The reds and blues are still very Panasonic looking to me.

I'm not sure how much effort FilmConvert really put in to optimising their profiles for each camera or even each set of camera settings. The same scene shot in different picture styles with the relevant FilmConvert profiles applied should look similar, yet they often don't.

 

Paul Leeming said on FB:

If you like 709L colours the most, try adjusting the knee to get more DR (and report back!). Did you record your tests? It would be great to see samples.

 

Additional thoughts from Paul:

V-Log in the GH5 ACTUALLY has more dynamic range than Cine-D! Rejoice! :D I'm seeing about two stops or so more dynamic range (this is an estimate, not exact measurement), although with it comes more shadow noise. The good news is, the shadow noise is quite grainy and random, without pattern noise that I can see. So it should be 1. easy to fix with a denoising plugin and 2. easy to leave in place and accept as film-like grain. This is exciting as it means that the jump to 10bit 4:2:2 has really allowed for more headroom, even if it's not quite using all the tonal range of a linear profile. At least with the implementation of 10bit footage, there is no longer a breakdown in chroma blocking. I think I'll be using this as my primary shooting profile from now on with my LUT applied in post, which is quite the change from the GH4 where V-Log was inferior.

Cine-D still appears to be the second best dynamic range and gives a stop or so extra dynamic range over Like709. Like709 seems, well, like Rec709! :DBut at the expense of shadow detail. Much better to shoot Cine-D and apply an accurate Rec709 LUT over the top, and retain the extra dynamic range. For those not wanting V-Log, this is a good solution still.

... Loving it! A lot of the GH4 niggles have been ironed out, and the IBIS and 10bit 4:2:2 makes a real difference. The sensor seems a lot more sensitive to blue which is good, because not only do you get better colorimetry, the extra sensitivity translates into less blue noise at the shadow end. Battery isn't lasting quite as long as the GH4 but that's to be expected given the extra processing power and IBIS. In short, a very good update thus far and for professionals, a must have in my opinion.

V-Log pushed 4 stops:

[Emanuel]

Moreover, lot of these "reviewers" (dozens of thousands of YT followers won't impede my commas there) when not detractors with a business agenda with other brand(s), they simply forget hybrid focus modes or certain features such as touch to focus (actually, an AF mode too) only in order to make their point.

This is sad when people start to cancel their orders based on BS or incomplete information which has become mere misinformation in the meantime, as matter of fact, precisely 'cause of that. That puzzles and irritates me enough as tech and picture lover.

[jonpais]

2 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Moreover, lot of these "reviewers" (dozens of thousands of YT followers won't impede my commas there) and detractors with a business agenda with other brand(s), they simply forget hybrid focus modes or certain features such as touch to focus (actually, an AF mode too) only in order to make their point.

This is sad when people start to cancel their orders based on BS or uncomplete information which has become mere misinformation in the meantime, as matter of fact, because of that.

not sure I'm understanding your point. that having a few thousand followers makes your videos less credible? or that Max has an agenda? or you think Max is so dumb he doesn't realize there are other focus modes? or are you saying Max is supplying us with BS and incomplete information? sorry, Emanuel, I just don't buy it.

[Emanuel]

22 minutes ago, jonpais said:

not sure I'm understanding your point. that having a few thousand followers makes your videos less credible? or that Max has an agenda? or you think Max is so dumb he doesn't realize there are other focus modes? or are you saying Max is supplying us with BS and incomplete information? sorry, Emanuel, I just don't buy it.

I did a small edit in my post only to point out I don't necessarily think this "reviewer" has an agenda, as follows his disclaimer in one of his messages BTW. Lots of interests command internet marketing, though. That's for sure! He is one of many others.

Even though, his first test was pretty incomplete and very distracted. This 2nd one as a reply to the lack of depth of the other one, has 30 minutes, so another ballpark. But, yes, he has forgotten to test a more complete approach using a more capable full technique any experienced shooter will use. Not by definition mandatory manual focus, as a lot of other users usually infer as dichotomy to AF. There are other AF modes such as tap to focus he simply didn't talk about. Or the way we can lock AF up just in order to prevent hunting, as for instance.

All this is part of the labor and these AF tests drive me nuts for their bewildering simplicity. I don't have anything against thousands of YT followers and they surely don't bother me at all, on the contrary, they led me to demand more from their input being one of them.

[jonpais]

16 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

I did a small edit in my post only to point out I don't necessarily think this "reviewer" has an agenda, as follows his disclaimer in one of his messages BTW. Lots of interests command internet marketing, though. That's for sure! He is one of many others.

Even though, his first test was pretty incomplete and very distracted. This 2nd one as a reply to the lack of depth of the other one, has 30 minutes, so another ballpark. But, yes, he has forgotten to test a more complete approach using a more capable full technique any experienced shooter will use. Not by definition mandatory manual focus, as a lot of other users usually infer as dichotomy to AF. There are other AF modes such as tap to focus he simply didn't talk about. Or the way we can lock AF up just in order to prevent hunting, as for instance.

All this is part of the labor and these AF tests drive me nuts for their bewildering simplicity. I don't have anything against thousands of YT followers and they surely don't bother me at all, on the contrary, they led me to demand more from their input being one of them.

Here is what Max has to say at the conclusion of his video after ten hours of testing with different lenses, different menu settings and different lighting and conditions (all inspired by feedback from his viewers, I might add):

I do really really want to emphasize the fact that this is not a bad camera.…The autofocus doesn’t work well, but it’s still a great camera. I’m gonna get a lot of people who are gonna say that I’m hating on this camera, I want to put it down, I’m paid by Sony or Fuji or anybody else… but that’s not the case. This is still a great camera… A camera doesn’t have to have great autofocusing to be a great camera. You look at some of the professional cameras like lthe Ursa Mini Pro that we have coming in tomorrow, that doesn’t even have autofocus…

[jonpais]

@Emanuel "Lots of interests command internet marketing, though. That's for sure! He is one of many others." 

Not exactly sure what you're implying here either. dichotomy to AF? Sorry, you lost me completely. If Max was solely interested in making a fast buck, he would have praised the Olympus OMD E-M1 Mk Ii to the skies; and you'd think he'd be doing the same with the GH5 - just think, he could get as much as a few percent from every order placed through Amazon or B&H -but he doesn't do that. 

Also, he is testing continuous AF - he's already tested tap to focus in previous videos as far as I recall, or if he hasn't he certainly will.

[Emanuel]

Yes, I've just read that and something else. I don't contest his honesty. Either his naivety ; )

Well, I recall when I was at film school, I remember one instructor (if not some others) to make fun because of our YT age where the standards shall be tremendously low as internet in general actually is. That is, the democratization of knowledge would bring some oddities as to establish some "authorities" as rookies in disguise. Just some pioneers to have found the "magic formula" on new media supplied by new technologies in a new world.

I regret to see their words were pretty accurate indeed. The Warhol's 15 minutes of fame don't inevitably mean quality on the outcome checked. Mediocrity rules over our heads, unfortunately.

I don't object their effort, just the quality of the massive support these "reviewers" have on a basis of an uninformed audience of thousands when not millions. They could bring some credibility, oh great, of course. My beef is with the poorly dandy results they offer to my eyes. I don't perforce this reviewer, perhaps the review per se. I speak in general. I'd love to see an Adam Wilt or Barry Green (well known Panasonic shill BTW) only because I know their technical standard is likely much higher and reliable, once they put their name in the front of the fullness of their testing. That was the pattern ten years ago. Today, we are under the pop YT domain. A pity.

[jonpais]

1 minute ago, Emanuel said:

Yes, I've just read that and something else. I don't contest his honesty. Either his naivety ; )

Well, I recall when I was at film school, I remember one instructor (if not some others) to make fun because of our YT age where the standards shall be tremendously low as internet in general actually is. That is, the democratization of knowledge would bring some oddities as to establish some "authorities" as rookies in disguise. Just some pioneers to have found the "magic formula" on new media supplied by new technologies in a new world.

I regret to see their words were pretty accurate indeed. The Warhol's 15 minutes of fame don't inevitably mean quality on the outcome checked. Mediocrity rules over our heads, unfortunately.

I don't object their effort, just the quality of the massive support these "reviewers" have on a basis of an uninformed audience of thousands when not millions. They could bring some credibility, oh great, of course. My beef is with the poorly dandy results they offer to my eyes. I don't perforce this reviewer, perhaps the review per se. I speak in general. I'd love to see an Adam Wilt or Barry Green (well known Panasonic shill BTW) only because I know their technical standard is likely much higher and reliable, once they put their name in the front of the fullness of their testing. That was the pattern ten years ago. Today, we are under the pop YT domain. A pity.

Actually, there is quite a bit of high quality YT content if you know where to look.

[Emanuel]

Sure, there is. But the rules over YT views have sunk reviewers and, by consequence, reviews of quality IMO.

[jonpais]

5 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Sure, there is. But the rules over YT views have sunk reviewers and, by consequence, reviews of quality IMO.

And the Ad Boycott in particular (not for gear reviews, but a source of major concern). Another reason I've started to become a Patreon supporter of several channels, and I encourage everyone else to do the same as well.

[Davey]

1 minute ago, jonpais said:

And the Ad Boycott in particular.

The ad tightening by YouTube has turned into a blessing for me. I am now concentrating on stock 4k footage and loving how I don't need to consider any context or justification for any clip - I can concentrate purely on getting the best possible shot of any subject that comes to mind without having to weave it into any story.

One sale a year will equal the ad revenue off 50,000 YouTube views.

I'm off out to get some more clips as type, knowing that the four clips I shot (EOSHD Pro Color), trimmed and lightly graded (Color Finale) are better than anything in its subject class on the stock sites I have viewed. But then I did wait 90 minutes for a lynx to get into a decent composition and yawn.