Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

[Emanuel]

7 hours ago, jonpais said:

Hate to open up old wounds, but wasn't it you who started the thread GH5 Noise Reduction @high ISOs simply sucks... ?

Yes, and I'd have opened it again. I still post there as much as when pops up new stuff worthy to be posted, as it is possible to check in my most recent posting in the same thread ; )

Merit of those samples (#1).

As written then, still samples but yet... The way they apply NR -- deteriorating the natural grain high ISOs obviously introduce (only because Sony is there with their superior full frame technology as far as low light capabilities concerns), is outrageous IMO.

I stand it. Despite the Tony Northrup findings now (actually, I was going to post that same link in the same notorious thread when Hanriverprod posted it here in the meantime) and I see now someone else has done it on my behalf.

They need to let the operator decide to apply or not whatever setting(s) he/she feels like, instead. Denoising doesn't escape to the rule. Leave it to post is not anything bad either. Automatic modes in photography can variably bring to low quality results. And imponderability at such level can happen to be dangerous. Pity that people want the magical button instead by default.

But, we're now discussing AF performance which has made a lot of people to have canceled their GH5 purchase. Based on what? Incomplete/defective method on testing? Misinformation? Lack of knowing the craft? That's the whole point.

So, in a line: both points match in coherence.

I am able to adopt brand loyalty but I am brand agnostic. My loyalty to accuracy and fairness is much higher ;-)

And as you see, I am not alone on this one (I doubt they had read this thread and my protest here or my message to Max Yuryev there but they've surely seen his tests):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyTggg5NcIk

[Ken Ross]

8 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

GH5 vs A6500 Autofocus Comparison - 4K & 1080P

Max is going for broke with these af tests.

Last few times I shot on a 80D I turned it on and the af just worked without digging into the menu. Did Panasonic try a shock and awe tactic with all their confusing af settings to hide outdated technology?

And yet all I did in all my AF tests that simulated Max's test, was to use central area focusing at default settings (never even touched sensitivity & speed). I contend that for many situations, there's no need to make it more complicated than it needs to be. Such a bad rap for this camera due to Max's testing. I see more and more owners scratching their heads over his video.

7 hours ago, eltorrete said:

I will not say that my GH5 is better than the 6500 because I do not have it. What I say 100% is that my GH5 is much better than Max's.

And as more and more people get their GH5 and post their results, I see more and more comments just like this. Yet Max doubles down despite this. I've posted a few of my comments (very polite) regarding my testing resulting in totally different results, along with links to the videos, yet he never responded once. It just gets stranger and stranger.

7 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Are you speaking about the video of focusing in the street on the car, then on something else then on the car again? If yes this is totally different than the focus tracking of his face. If not which video please?

If you watched his video straight through, he conducted tests that were virtually identical to two I posted. He too went from a car to something else and back to the car. His camera refused to focus, mine was fine in the same tests. Sorry, but my testing mirrored his testing for that piece of the video. As for focus tracking, I would never use it since I don't think it's effective in any camera I've used. Never worked right in any Sony I've used.

[Nodnarb]

4 hours ago, Borbarad said:

So much about awful the GH5 AF.........

 

 

Well, its seems their is a nice learning curve in howto.... and then the GH5 does AF

B

Even after dialing in settings that he said worked "quite well", the camera still loses focus almost 10 times in less than a minute and a half (12:17-13:30). And this was while conveniently using an external recorder not recording internally, after Max found that the GH5 autofocus worked much better when not recording internally. Joseph now says in the comments he didn't realize this and that he wasn't trying to deceive viewers. So he bashes reviewers like Max for supposedly not taking the time to understand the camera, at the same time that he supposedly doesn't know as much as Max about the camera.

[Ken Ross]

7 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

From all the footage I've seen so far Max's camera with af looks on par. I wish there was more footage of composed, graded 10bit stuff. I think we are all getting a good picture of what the af is like, it's time to move on.

Max's camera is on par? Really? With what, another broken camera? Despite other videos which show something quite different, including the ones I've posted? There appear to be a couple of folks here that would rather pick one video as representative of the AF and all other videos be damned. It's an interesting thing to watch people ignore what is clearly contradictory evidence.

[jonpais]

53 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Yes, and I'd have opened it again. I still post there as much as when pops up new stuff worthy to be posted, as it is possible to check in my most recent posting in the same thread ; )

Merit of those samples (#1).

As written then, still samples but yet... The way they apply NR -- deteriorating the natural grain high ISOs obviously introduce (only because Sony is there with their superior full frame technology as far as low light capabilities concerns), is outrageous IMO.

I stand it. Despite the Tony Northrup findings now (actually, I was going to post that same link in the same notorious thread when Hanriverprod posted it here in the meantime) and I see now someone else has done it on my behalf.

They need to let the operator decide to apply or not whatever setting(s) he/she feels like, instead. Denoising doesn't escape to the rule. Leave it to post is not anything bad either. Automatic modes in photography can variably bring to low quality results. And imponderability at such level can happen to be dangerous. Pity that people want the magical button instead by default.

But, we're now discussing AF performance which has made a lot of people to have canceled their GH5 purchase. Based on what? Incomplete/defective method on testing? Misinformation? Lack of knowing the craft? That's the whole point.

So, in a line: both points match in coherence.

I am able to adopt brand loyalty but I am brand agnostic. My loyalty to accuracy and fairness is much higher ;-)

And as you see, I am not alone on this one here and now (I doubt they had read this thread and my protest here or my message to Max Yuryev there but they've surely seen his tests):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyTggg5NcIk

You're missing the point. You see one comparison over at imaging resource, an unreliable site to begin with, they only publish sugar-coated reviews, then you condemn the camera without even holding one in your hands. You began a new thread saying the NR sucks, but many other reviews have found otherwise. Sounds a bit, well... 

[Nodnarb]

3 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

Max's camera is on par? Really? With what, another broken camera? Despite other videos which show something quite different, including the ones I've posted? There appear to be a couple of folks here that would rather pick one video as representative of the AF and all other videos be damned. It's an interesting thing to watch people ignore what is clearly contradictory evidence.

Your autofocus test were helpful, but they were a little different from Max's weren't they? He was using the 12-35 2.8, and he did a significant amount of indoor testing with his assistant walking toward and away from the camera. I could have missed it if you did the same test, this thread is 86 pages long already.

[Fritz Pierre]

56 minutes ago, Phil A said:

@Borbarad Both of these videos are using the 60p mode and the second one even explicitly says you have to use 60p for improved autofocus performance. That mean you can't shoot 24p like most people want and it's not possible to record in 10bit. I don't see these videos as good news. Also what good are so damn many autofocus settings and options if most are subpar? 

 

On the other hand a lot of people love the A7s II and that definitely has really bad autofocus, cinema cameras typically have none at all, so who really cares. We made it work before, it's just that the latest Canon and Sony cameras spark desires.

Wish there was another fast (f/1.2-1.4) option in the 17-20mm range for m43 than the Voigtländer. Also wondering if image quality is better with the Voigtländer 17.5mm or with the SpeedBooster XL + Canon/Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 . 

Well I think if you want to optimize autofocus, then shoot in 60P...that's what studio cameras do....and if you want to shoot sports or run & gun news footage...use it...but 24p was intended as a frame rate to mirror motion blur of S35 or 16 or 70 cinema film cameras, in which case you would pull focus manually like it's always been done, or get thrown of the set after your first couple of hours of your first day's shoot...anyway, there are a lot of people (trolls)? focussing (pun intended) more on autofocus than the image in the camera itself!...kind of like Trump going on about Obama wiretapping him, instead of what happened with Russia and the US election...LOL

[Ken Ross]

7 hours ago, Phil A said:

 

Have to love that video at 10m32s where they look at the GH5 Extended Manual online and it actually says that the camera will probably struggle when autofocusing in UHD video but that's for accuracy, not a malfunction. Seems like sugar coating a lacking function.

Also interesting that the part above that warns of overheating messages. Makes me curious if people will run into these or it's more hypothetical.

Nevertheless, I'm really looking forward to seeing what people do with the camera once the autofocus arguments die down.

How is that different than every other camera manufacturer's manual that talks about AF effectiveness and then proceeds to list 10-15 things that might compromise AF? I shoot exclusively in 4K and have had no such issues.

The AF subject is becoming tedious since some, apperently non-owners, just won't believe any evidence to the contrary. I firmly believe someone could duplicate Max's video in every phase of his testing, achieve perfect AF, and it would be ignored. After all, I've duplicated a couple of his tests and those same folks ignore that too.

After I posted a couple of videos showing the AF was fine, someone asked me to duplicate the test of his failure when he brought a lens in front of his camera and it failed to focus. His failed every time. I did the test and it focused every single time. The same folks seem to have ignored that too, fascinating. I'm beginning to think it's an utter waste of time for anyone to post evidence to the contrary.

Believe what you wish guys.

4 hours ago, Borbarad said:

Another one....

 

B, they'll all be ignored by a few.

3 hours ago, ozmorphasis said:

Are we seeing the downside of the lack of an OLPF in the GH5 in the roof of those buildings.  As a GH4 owner, I've never had to be anxious about Moire.  It just hasn't been common enough to fret about it.  Your shots of the roof on that building, however, is totally unusable for any of my paid work.  

 

Of course, native lenses with their oversharpened look tend to exacerbate the issue, but still.  That shot looks worrisome to me.  

I just checked my original video. It absolutely, positively does not show up in the original 4K video. It is apparently a product of YouTube compression. The roof is 100% clean and devoid of moire in the original.

 

2 hours ago, dbp said:

Watch it full screen, it's not there. An artifact of a youtube embed. 

dbp, thanks, you beat me to it. Over the years I've seen countless times where an artifact is blamed on the camera as opposed to YouTube compression artifacts or, watching a 4K YouTube video on an HD monitor. Even that can introduce artifacts that were never there in the original video.

[wolf33d]

33 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

If you watched his video straight through, he conducted tests that were virtually identical to the one I posted. He too went from a car to something else and back to the car. His camera refused to focus, mine was fine in the same tests. Sorry, but my testing mirrored his testing for that piece of the video. As for focus tracking, I would never use it since I don't think it's effective in any camera I've used. Never worked right in any Sony I've used.

What are you talking about? There is no car in his video, he his filming his face moving forward and away from the camera, so this has nothing to do with your video of the car. Again, I am talking about this video from 12:50. No car, just filming his face. And we can see the AF is awful. Since then he posted a comparison of his face tracking with the A6500 and as you can see it does a 10000000 times better job. 

Now the fact that you say focus tracking does not work, you must have never used a Canon DPAF enabled camera, or the A6500, or do not know how to use them properly. 

 

[Fritz Pierre]

12 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

How is that different than every other camera manufacturer's manual that talks about AF effectiveness and then proceeds to list 10-15 things that might compromise AF? I shoot exclusively in 4K and have had no such issues.

The AF subject is becoming tedious since some, apperently non-owners, just won't believe any evidence to the contrary. I firmly believe someone could duplicate Max's video in every phase of his testing, achieve perfect AF, and it would be ignored. After all, I've duplicated a couple of his tests and those same folks ignore that too.

After I posted a couple of videos showing the AF was fine, someone asked me to duplicate the test of his failure when he brought a lens in front of his camera and it failed to focus. His failed every time. I did the test and it focused every single time. The same folks seem to have ignored that too, fascinating. I'm beginning to think it's an utter waste of time for anyone to post evidence to the contrary.

Believe what you wish guys.

Yes Ken...I tend to agree....and the weird thing is that a couple of negative GH5 threads have already been opened by the AF crowd...but as they don't get enough traffic I guess, they've now spilled over into the thread that was intended for people who actually want this camera...are excited to learn about and discuss it...perhaps time for a separate"only people who are excited about the GH5 and DON'T CARE about AF" thread....where those who've waited patiently since  2014! (me) can enjoy discussing and sharing in things re this camera instead of defending yet another level of outstanding features in the newest GH release.

 

PS: Things must be way too quiet in the canon or sony threads...all those owners seem to be over here!

[Orangenz]

3 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

How is that different than every other camera manufacturer's manual that talks about AF effectiveness and then proceeds to list 10-15 things that might compromise AF? I shoot exclusively in 4K and have had no such issues.

The AF subject is becoming tedious since some, apperently non-owners, just won't believe any evidence to the contrary. I firmly believe someone could duplicate Max's video in every phase of his testing, achieve perfect AF, and it would be ignored. After all, I've duplicated a couple of his tests and those same folks ignore that too.

After I posted a couple of videos showing the AF was fine, someone asked me to duplicate the test of his failure when he brought a lens in front of his camera and it failed to focus. His failed every time. I did the test and it focused every single time. The same folks seem to have ignored that too, fascinating. I'm beginning to think it's an utter waste of time for anyone to post evidence to the contrary.

Believe what you wish guys.

I tried it your way (one area) and the AF is fast as. So that's it guys, use ONE AREA AF.

[Ken Ross]

28 minutes ago, Nodnarb said:

Your autofocus test were helpful, but they were a little different from Max's weren't they? He was using the 12-35 2.8, and he did a significant amount of indoor testing with his assistant walking toward and away from the camera. I could have missed it if you did the same test, this thread is 86 pages long already.

No, absolutely, not, they weren't 'very different' from Max's test for the portion that I did. I did 2 tests that mirrored 2 of his tests (the outdoor test and the 'lens in front of the camera' test. Both of my tests were 100% successful and 100% repeatable and both of his were utter failures. How can you possibly ignore this even if I didn't conduct every single test he did? I never contended that I duplicated every test he did. And I also made it clear I was using the 14-140 lens. I won't go out and buy the lens he used so I can duplicate that aspect too. Folks will ignore those results too if it doesn't fit their preconceived notions. 

I did do an indoor test in a dark house during a stormy day that I posted. Granted I didn't have a subject moving toward and away from me, but I did walk through the house seeing if the CAF would focus as I walked. It did.

FWIW, I don't believe the 14-140 lens is astronomically better than the 12-35 for AF. It would take that astronomical difference in lenses to explain my results vs his. Much easier to believe a defective camera or something else. 

Now I'm not saying this is you, but as I've seen for many years, when a new piece of equipment is introduced (and this could be cameras, TVs, audio equipment etc.), there are many that try to denigrate that equipment because they don't want to invest in new equipment and have a need to defend what they own. It's human nature for many of us.

40 minutes ago, Nodnarb said:

Even after dialing in settings that he said worked "quite well", the camera still loses focus almost 10 times in less than a minute and a half (12:17-13:30). And this was while conveniently using an external recorder not recording internally, after Max found that the GH5 autofocus worked much better when not recording internally. Joseph now says in the comments he didn't realize this and that he wasn't trying to deceive viewers. So he bashes reviewers like Max for supposedly not taking the time to understand the camera, at the same time that he supposedly doesn't know as much as Max about the camera.

Actually he never 'bashed' Max. That's a bit of hyperbole. What he did poke fun at, justifiably IMO, was one of Max's favorite tests, having his subject pop up from below and disappear. Personally I think it's a silly test that's representative of nothing in real shooting.

The reason he used an external recorder was to prove where his settings were so that we could all see them while he was recording, something that was missing from Max's video. I personally thought it was a nice touch. To be perfectly honest, I too was unaware until I watched that video that there was an AF performance difference between internal & external recording. I'd bet most owners are unaware of that.

[Ken Ross]

30 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

What are you talking about? There is no car in his video, he his filming his face moving forward and away from the camera, so this has nothing to do with your video of the car. Again, I am talking about this video from 12:50. No car, just filming his face. And we can see the AF is awful. Since then he posted a comparison of his face tracking with the A6500 and as you can see it does a 10000000 times better job. 

Now the fact that you say focus tracking does not work, you must have never used a Canon DPAF enabled camera, or the A6500, or do not know how to use them properly. 

 

Really, then what is this at 18:00? THAT is what I duplicated. Notice his failure? Notice my success in the same type of video? I give up. Why not watch the video that others are talking about. You are so far behind what's been discussed. I've reached the point where I don't give a damn about Max's tests since they are NOT representative of what many owners are experiencing. Good grief, if there were 10,000 GH5 videos with perfect focus, you'd hang your hat on this one. You don't like the GH5, don't buy it! Done.

 

[Emanuel]

@jonpais, I'm sorry pal but I see the thing upside down and I'm afraid we will only be going to merry-go-round on this one here.

First off and I beg your apologize for my tone here now but that's coming by default LOL : ) from my law school background (before film school on par with camera work for more than two decades and a half now):

1) Where are the facts you may name Imaging Resource as an unreliable site? Because of "sugar-coated reviews", as you say? Listen, I am not even placing in doubt the fairness or not of your judgement on them, just wondering.

2) There were finest samples on their (Panasonic) method of applying NR techniques, very controversial approach BTW. To my book, a crime against IQ, posterior usage and so on. Without mention the most part here seemed to concur; you included I believe, from your posts there.

3) Ah, but the sensor performance (and some cooking) is so good that we've been concluding that mercenary method (I guess we can call it like that) won't play a major role in the further combination after all (so, the proof is in the pudding, once again, my first motto throughout all my posting along the last decade in these and other boards, mainly dvxuser and reduser).

4) Moreover, the thread was all about samples from stills not video frames as very early stated as disclaimer. 

5) My thread was produced during the pre-production period -- no camera available, but the samples were ; ) motivating high concern from my side on the methodology applied (as thread's subject), so presented as a worry, presage, warning, a (bad) sign, foreshadow, threat... so, something that could/can even be corrected if they would be reading (I'm afraid not, though) such lines.

6) The detractors of GH5 AF have been coming to successively post a few disinformation based on their production (!) units because they simply have no clue how to overcome eventual limitations of the system, they don't even care how to properly use it in order to extend all the potentiality of features like touch to focus, as for instance.

7) We do mention here of professional reviewing, that is, the reviewers are paid by affiliate sales, so I guess that's a consensual statement which automatically implies some responsibilities associated -- as craft, for the crafts and professionals targeted, for the brand(s) with its (their) name and interests involved; and, of course, susceptible (both sides, not only the manufacturers) to public criticism, mainly by the readers and in behalf of the facts.

8) They're hurting GH5 sales from their unskilled perspective.

 

You are an intelligent mod here, so it is your duty to not feed up this mistake as much as mine proud to be a serious player to post good news from low light performance whenever this camera is able to. Once more, that's what the historic of my posting in that thread fairly concurs.

 

E :-)

[Ken Ross]

35 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Yes Ken...I tend to agree....and the weird thing is that a couple of negative GH5 threads have already been opened by the AF crowd...but as they don't get enough traffic I guess, they've now spilled over into the thread that was intended for people who actually want this camera...are excited to learn about and discuss it...perhaps time for a separate"only people who are excited about the GH5 and DON'T CARE about AF" thread....where those who've waited patiently since  2014! (me) can enjoy discussing and sharing in things re this camera instead of defending yet another level of outstanding features in the newest GH release.

 

PS: Things must be way too quiet in the canon or sony threads...all those owners seem to be over here!

Fritz, superb idea!!! This is done on other forums to keep the trolls out. I like it!

34 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

I tried it your way (one area) and the AF is fast as. So that's it guys, use ONE AREA AF.

Orangenz, it's amazing isn't? I watch these guys adjusting speed to +5 and responsiveness to -5 and then 20 settings in-between to achieve the 'perfect balance', and all I did was use central area focusing at the default settings. Done. I think some guys are making this more complicated than it needs to be in many instances. Sure, it might not be perfect for every situation, but hell, I've used it in a variety of environments and it's worked every time.  

[Emanuel]

5 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

Fritz, superb idea!!! This is done on other forums to keep the trolls out. I like it!

Orangenz, it's amazing isn't? I watch these guys adjusting to +5 on speed and -5 on responsiveness and then 20 settings in-between to achieve the 'perfect balance', and all I did was use central area focusing at the default settings. Done. Sure, it might not be perfect for every situation, but hell, I've used it in a variety of environments and it's worked every time.  

Yeah, Ken. You're right! At this point of the route, trolling is the fair word to call it ;-)

[Orangenz]

44 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Yeah, Ken. You're right! At this point of the route, trolling is the fair word to call it ;-)

You've been posting some rather impressive pics from the gh5, nice work! Can't really follow your comments here, lost in translation a tad :D 

[Emanuel]

7 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

You've been posting some rather impressive pics from the gh5, nice work! Can't really follow your comments here, lost in translation a tad :D 

LOL Sorry mate, I only try my best to break down that can be deconstructed into harmless information in a different way round the ring ;-) 

[wolf33d]

1 hour ago, Ken Ross said:

Really, then what is this at 18:00? THAT is what I duplicated. Notice his failure? Notice my success in the same type of video? I give up. Why not watch the video that others are talking about. You are so far behind what's been discussed. I've reached the point where I don't give a damn about Max's tests since they are NOT representative of what many owners are experiencing. Good grief, if there were 10,000 GH5 videos with perfect focus, you'd hang your hat on this one. You don't like the GH5, don't buy it! Done.

 

I clearly stated the 12:50 mark in my initial message to which you reacted, not the 18:00. 

Maybe his  GH5 is defective maybe not, however you did not replicate his face test which interest me a LOT more than the car test.
Anyway I am receiving my GH5 soon and will be able to check that by myself. 

[Emanuel]

@wolf33d, take a look for the best of sources available instead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG-G3tIhaig