Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

[Skip77]

2 hours ago, kye said:

I once saw someone give a mobile flip-phone a 1-star rating because they didn't like the ringtones it came with.  Just because people do something doesn't make it sensible.  You can go on comparing the past with the future all you like, but I fail to see how its relevant or even useful.  If you're looking to answer the question "Should I buy an S1 or get in my time machine and go back to when the GH5 was launched and buy one of those?  They were the same price at launch" then I think you've missed the point of what the potential of a time machine is  

I'm not sure your argument makes sense because the GH5 is still on the market sold as new and 2 years old. The GH5 is the current flagship model in the m4/3 line up. The S1 is the entry level full frame and $2,495 for the body only. The GH5 is also touted as a great camera will great color and all the features you need. It's also claimed to be better then the Nikon Z6 by miles. My point is the S1 is like the Z6 and is better in image quality and color then the GH5. People don't like to hear the S1 is better then the Gh5 because they bought the GH5 or they bought into the hype of the GH5. Simple as that.

Panasonic actually talked about how much better the S1 would be then any mirrorless camera they've made before and that claim included the GH5. 

[webrunner5]

The S1 is Not a better video camera. It is touted as a better Photo camera. How many give a crap about that on here. I sure as hell in this day and age am not paying 2500 bucks for a new Photo camera that probably in reality sucks ass in the AF department. What the hell good is that! You sort of only get one shot, pun intended.

I can buy a used Canon 1Dx, or a Nikon D4s for that kind of money, and I WILL get the shot, great color and all. And I can drive nails with them if I need to, and fend off serial killers if need be.. Plus I can probably find a F ing native lens for them to boot that I can still filter booze with both kidneys in tact. Leica Really doesn't Need any more money.

[Jonesy Jones]

On 4/24/2019 at 4:34 PM, AlexTrinder96 said:

He's no longer active on this forum...

What happened to Jon? Been wondering where he went to.

[Video Hummus]

12 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

What happened to Jon? Been wondering where he went to.

People say he ascended to HLG.

[Skip77]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

The S1 is Not a better video camera. It is touted as a better Photo camera. How many give a crap about that on here. I sure as hell in this day and age am not paying 2500 bucks for a new Photo camera that probably in reality sucks ass in the AF department. What the hell good is that! You sort of only get one shot, pun intended.

I can buy a used Canon 1Dx, or a Nikon D4s for that kind of money, and I WILL get the shot, great color and all. And I can drive nails with them if I need to, and fend off serial killers if need be.. Plus I can probably find a F ing native lens for them to boot that I can still filter booze with both kidneys in tact. Leica Really doesn't Need any more money.

You need to get up to date brother or your eyes checked. I said the S1 has a better image, color and quality then the GH5. Every GH5 owner that's tested the S1 has said this and videos online prove it. You say the same thing about every camera except eh GH5 and that is "that cameras not better then the GH5, hell I can get a used.........." - who cares what used piece of crap camera you can pick up.

 You haven't tested the S1 or the Z6 and both cameras will have 12 bit raw and both have better color and low light then the GH5. You can keep the scopes and meter and other feature because image quality wins at the end of the day. 

And here's SOC video still from 4K 30fps that has perfect color from the Z6. 

 

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

The S1 is Not a better video camera. It is touted as a better Photo camera. How many give a crap about that on here. I sure as hell in this day and age am not paying 2500 bucks for a new Photo camera that probably in reality sucks ass in the AF department. What the hell good is that! You sort of only get one shot, pun intended.

I can buy a used Canon 1Dx, or a Nikon D4s for that kind of money, and I WILL get the shot, great color and all. And I can drive nails with them if I need to, and fend off serial killers if need be.. Plus I can probably find a F ing native lens for them to boot that I can still filter booze with both kidneys in tact. Leica Really doesn't Need any more money.

And it's clear you based your opinion pre-release rumor from haters. Why? I have no idea since it seem like you have tons of knowledge. 

I'm going to go post in the Raw Shooting Cameras section about the Z6. Do you wanna come along with your GH5? On man the GH5 doesn't shoot Raw. Never mind!

[webrunner5]

The Z6 as of now Does NOT shoot Raw. It might Never shoot Raw. And and how many people even want to shit with Raw if it does. I really don't. Probably 3 people on here even use Raw. Even Mercer, if he shot ProRes LT, would be on his 5th episode of his movie by now.

And the picture above is a Photo, not a frame grab. Last I knew this is a video site pretty much. Not hard in this day to figure out how to make a camera shoot Photos. Nikon sort of has been doing that for a few years. I could give a rats ass about photos. My phone can do that,and probably just about as good in decent to good light..

[kye]

59 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

You need to get up to date brother or your eyes checked.

One thing I have learned from this forum and others, both across film-maker as well as professional colourist discussions, is that different people have different taste and associations.  There is evidence to suggest that we heavily identify with the aesthetic that was to our taste during our teenage years according to a range of biological factors, including things like the levels of hormones burn in the neural pathways more strongly, etc.  

In this sense, many prefer film, which is medium/high resolution but low sharpness, high DR but variable in tint and saturation, etc.  Getting an 8K camera will not be a step forwards for these folks, despite the fact it is objectively 'better'.  

The other thing to remember is that we are creating art, not doing scientific record-keeping, so the aesthetic lining up with the artists vision is the fidelity that is required, not fidelity to reality (unless reality is the artists vision..).

1 hour ago, Skip77 said:

I'm going to go post in the Raw Shooting Cameras section about the Z6. Do you wanna come along with your GH5? On man the GH5 doesn't shoot Raw. Never mind!

I'm not particularly interested in shooting RAW but here's my counter-offer - why don't you come along and hang out in the 3 Hour 1 Minute Film Challenge thread where we try and look at all the aspects of film-making instead of SNR and bitrate.

To paraphrase one of the guidelines of the challenge....  Publish in 720p - equipment shouldn't matter and if your film looks dull in 720 then 4K RAW will not save you

[Skip77]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

The Z6 as of now Does NOT shoot Raw. It might Never shoot Raw. And and how many people even want to shit with Raw if it does. I really don't. Probably 3 people on here even use Raw. Even Mercer, if he shot ProRes LT, would be on his 5th episode of his movie by now.

And the picture above is a Photo, not a frame grab. Last I knew this is a video site pretty much. Not hard in this day to figure out how to make a camera shoot Photos. Nikon sort of has been doing that for a few years. I could give a rats ass about photos. My phone can do that,and probably just about as good in decent to good light..

The Nikon Z6 is scheduled to get 12 bit Raw ProRes output to Atomos Ninja recorder. Where did you get your information? You have Nikon with this info and Atomos saying the same-thing. Where do you get that the Z6 might never get Raw? 

 

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

The Z6 as of now Does NOT shoot Raw. It might Never shoot Raw. And and how many people even want to shit with Raw if it does. I really don't. Probably 3 people on here even use Raw. Even Mercer, if he shot ProRes LT, would be on his 5th episode of his movie by now.

And the picture above is a Photo, not a frame grab. Last I knew this is a video site pretty much. Not hard in this day to figure out how to make a camera shoot Photos. Nikon sort of has been doing that for a few years. I could give a rats ass about photos. My phone can do that,and probably just about as good in decent to good light..

Here's the video that you claim is a photo. 

 

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

I could give a rats ass about photos. My phone can do that,and probably just about as good in decent to good light..

You must have more to say then that since you thought a video still was actually a photo.

31 minutes ago, kye said:

One thing I have learned from this forum and others, both across film-maker as well as professional colourist discussions, is that different people have different taste and associations.  There is evidence to suggest that we heavily identify with the aesthetic that was to our taste during our teenage years according to a range of biological factors, including things like the levels of hormones burn in the neural pathways more strongly, etc.  

In this sense, many prefer film, which is medium/high resolution but low sharpness, high DR but variable in tint and saturation, etc.  Getting an 8K camera will not be a step forwards for these folks, despite the fact it is objectively 'better'.  

The other thing to remember is that we are creating art, not doing scientific record-keeping, so the aesthetic lining up with the artists vision is the fidelity that is required, not fidelity to reality (unless reality is the artists vision..).

I'm not particularly interested in shooting RAW but here's my counter-offer - why don't you come along and hang out in the 3 Hour 1 Minute Film Challenge thread where we try and look at all the aspects of film-making instead of SNR and bitrate.

To paraphrase one of the guidelines of the challenge....  Publish in 720p - equipment shouldn't matter and if your film looks dull in 720 then 4K RAW will not save you

I will check out the 3 hour 1 minute Film Challenge - I didn't know it existed. 

[Skip77]

31 minutes ago, kye said:

One thing I have learned from this forum and others, both across film-maker as well as professional colourist discussions, is that different people have different taste and associations.  There is evidence to suggest that we heavily identify with the aesthetic that was to our taste during our teenage years according to a range of biological factors, including things like the levels of hormones burn in the neural pathways more strongly, etc.  

In this sense, many prefer film, which is medium/high resolution but low sharpness, high DR but variable in tint and saturation, etc.  Getting an 8K camera will not be a step forwards for these folks, despite the fact it is objectively 'better'.  

The other thing to remember is that we are creating art, not doing scientific record-keeping, so the aesthetic lining up with the artists vision is the fidelity that is required, not fidelity to reality (unless reality is the artists vision..).

I'm not particularly interested in shooting RAW but here's my counter-offer - why don't you come along and hang out in the 3 Hour 1 Minute Film Challenge thread where we try and look at all the aspects of film-making instead of SNR and bitrate.

To paraphrase one of the guidelines of the challenge....  Publish in 720p - equipment shouldn't matter and if your film looks dull in 720 then 4K RAW will not save you

The whole point of shooting with a RED or C200 or any cine camera is the best representation of reality as we can. Doesn't matter if you're shooting Log or not. The idea is for the important stuff you need good cine gear. 

Lots of misinformation being spread around about the new S1 and Z6 that were rumors started before the cameras were released that they would be better still cameras but not so good for video. 

Since we are in the "video forum" you see post daily were someone is asking how good this camera is vs another. 

For some reason telling someone that the GH5 is great for the money and the newer full frame cameras aren't any better is flat out not true. And that kind of comment will lead to someone buying the Gh5 in 2019, investing in m4/3 glass and making a mistake in the process. The BMP4K is better then the GH5 but that's not discussed either. Be a GH5 fan boy but don't point people in the wrong direction. 

[Towd]

8 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

For some reason telling someone that the GH5 is great for the money and the newer full frame cameras aren't any better is flat out not true. And that kind of comment will lead to someone buying the Gh5 in 2019, investing in m4/3 glass and making a mistake in the process. The BMP4K is better then the GH5 but that's not discussed either. Be a GH5 fan boy but don't point people in the wrong direction. 

The Nikon doesn't shoot 10 bit internally or have even half of the video features of the GH5, and it currently doesn't have raw shooting and if and when it comes, you'll need an external recorder.

The S1 also doesn't offer half of the shooting modes of the GH5 and I believe only offers one 10 bit internal record mode right now.  It'll be more interesting to people when the V-log update becomes available.  But that'll be then.

The GH5 has been a workhorse for over two years with a proven set of features that are available right now.  People shoot professional work with it now and have established workflows with it.  They know what to expect from it and how to get their best work from it.  In addition it still has almost no competition in the unique video features it packs into the body.. and yeah, it's over two years old.  At its current price, it is still a great buy if you want to record 10 bit internal video with a built in stabilizer.

Personally, I'm playing "wait and see" to observe what happens after the raw and v-log updates show up, but personally I'm more interested in seeing what the GH6 may offer.  Not everyone needs or cares about shooting video in Vista Vision / full frame.  And just because it's a flavor of the moment, doesn't mean it's actually necessary or better than micro four thirds.  And the general observation by the community is that the smaller sensors like APSC and m43 get the cooler video features earlier than full frame competitors due to heat and sensor read times.

Also, some of us REALLY hate rolling shutter and it's a more pronounced issue on full frame bodies.  I could see possibly picking up a full frame and using it mostly in crop mode, but then I end up asking myself why bother when the camera I've owned for two years has more video modes and features.  And in another year or so, there will be some new camera like the GH6 to grab our interest.

I see you bought a Nikon Z6.  It's a great camera-- go enjoy it.  Pretty much every camera out there can deliver excellent results.  But different people have different needs.  I don't know why you are on this crusade to troll the GH5  thread and convince us that we need to sell our cameras.

I'll end by just saying, if I was in the market for a new camera and buying into a new system, the Z6 and S1 would be very tempting and both look to be really exciting systems for someone new to the market.  You really can't make a bad choice.  For me, I have years of prior work experience going back to 10 bit Cineon files from the scanned film days.  It's something I'm used to and really appreciate.... so I'd probably be much more drawn to a camera that recorded 10 bit internally.    When I saw the GH5 was going to offer 10 bit log, Panasonic won me over, and I took a chance and bought it on day one.  I've now come to love all the cool features it offers that I didn't even know I was missing, but now wouldn't want to do without them.  Yeah, the color doesn't perfectly match an Alexa, and an Alexa doesn't perfectly match scanned film.  But there are so many great choices out there we're spoiled with great options.  ?

[kye]

1 hour ago, Skip77 said:

The whole point of shooting with a RED or C200 or any cine camera is the best representation of reality as we can.

I think I understand now.

You think that everyone sees film-making like you do.  This is a false assumption that you will hopefully shed over time.  Here's a question for you - what's the point of colour grading?  If the point of any cinema camera is to get the best representation of reality we can then why not just colour balance and then be done with it?  Why is the teal/orange look popular?  Why was The Matrix all green?  Why do they still make B&W films.  These are all exceptions to your "best representation of reality" argument.

1 hour ago, Skip77 said:

For some reason telling someone that the GH5 is great for the money and the newer full frame cameras aren't any better is flat out not true. And that kind of comment will lead to someone buying the Gh5 in 2019, investing in m4/3 glass and making a mistake in the process. The BMP4K is better then the GH5 but that's not discussed either. Be a GH5 fan boy but don't point people in the wrong direction. 

I couldn't care less about what camera is better than a GH5.  I have said so many times - feel free to review my past posts.

It sounds like there's a lot of emotion for you in the people who are saying things about the S1 or the Z6.  Even if I called them both potatoes - why would you care?

[Skip77]

50 minutes ago, kye said:

I think I understand now.

You think that everyone sees film-making like you do.  This is a false assumption that you will hopefully shed over time.  Here's a question for you - what's the point of colour grading?  If the point of any cinema camera is to get the best representation of reality we can then why not just colour balance and then be done with it?  Why is the teal/orange look popular?  Why was The Matrix all green?  Why do they still make B&W films.  These are all exceptions to your "best representation of reality" argument.

I couldn't care less about what camera is better than a GH5.  I have said so many times - feel free to review my past posts.

It sounds like there's a lot of emotion for you in the people who are saying things about the S1 or the Z6.  Even if I called them both potatoes - why would you care?

People have discussions in these forums that's what they are for. I could care less if you think the S1 and Z6 are junk. But when people are looking for advice about investing in gear then the EOSHD should be great place to get information. I happen to like the S1 and Z6 based on research I've done and by owning the Z6. Both these cameras have the best video from a mirrorless camera to date outside of the BMP4K.  

Both the S1 and Z6 will be able to shoot 12 bit Raw and everyone knows or should know the advantage of 12 bit Raw. No one is forcing anyone to shoot Raw but it's there if you need it. If 12 bit Raw is not what you want both cameras can do 10 bit 4K 30fps with no crop. Both have great color science. Wha's not to like?  Except the price.

You should know you need a camera that can capture good color and you have to have a good quality base to start with. Do you think the Matrix was shot the way we see it? 

You argument destroys the concept that Arri color is preferred over the RED or that Canon has great color or that good color matters at all. Since when did good or great color become something to disagree with? Good color is the goal of every camera maker and cinematographer. The last video I posted was straight out of the Z6 and as flat as I wanted to shot. 

My "best representation of reality" argument" is based on any footage out of the BMP4K, C200, RED, Arri, etc - if you want to bake in a look then go ahead and go for it. No one on professional gigs work that way and all the examples are color graded choice anyone can chose to apply.  

I have said very little about my views on film making and actually I have said nothing about my views. I posted samples to show that the Z6 does not crush black levels like one guy claimed they did or that the Z6 gave everything a dark look. And this guy is very quite about crushed black levels and the Z6 isn't he? 

I don't need to shed any assumption on how any camera should perform for professional work. Cameras should have good color and dynamic range to start with. That's the best way to capture reality. Capturing reality is what film, photography, videos have done since they were invented. I also never said I have issue with graded looks or when they should be applied or used. Let everyone create the vision they want. 

And you make it sound like color balance is not that critical or needed. The very point of EOSHD pro color for Sony that he created was to improve color performance on those cameras.

Your argument goes against the very foundation of EOSHD. 

 

[webrunner5]

8 hours ago, Skip77 said:

The Nikon Z6 is scheduled to get 12 bit Raw ProRes output to Atomos Ninja recorder. Where did you get your information? You have Nikon with this info and Atomos saying the same-thing. Where do you get that the Z6 might never get Raw? 

 

Here's the video that you claim is a photo. 

 

You must have more to say then that since you thought a video still was actually a photo.

 

Video or not I am still not am not buying one. Like I said, I am not buying Any of the new cameras. None of them, other than the PK4, too much to add to really get it to function, bring anything I need to the table that is not already out for less money. I am not a big Hybrid fan anyways. They are a compromise on both fronts. But I am sure a Z6, Z7 can get the job done. It just takes a lot more effort than I want to out into it to make it happen. Enjoy it.

[Skip77]

50 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Video or not I am still not am not buying one. Like I said, I am not buying Any of the new cameras. None of them, other than the PK4, too much to add to really get it to function, bring anything I need to the table that is not already out for less money. I am not a big Hybrid fan anyways. They are a compromise on both fronts. But I am sure a Z6, Z7 can get the job done. It just takes a lot more effort than I want to out into it to make it happen. Enjoy it.

Video or not is actually "A Video" - Why is this so hard to admit?  Could it be the quality looked better then you thought the Z6 was able to produce? Got ya on this one.

Fair enough on the other comments. I will probably test the P4K myself and see how the usability is and image quality. The price it too good to pass up on that one. I'm not sold on m4/3 glass  and having to invest but will probably rent high end glass for the P4K.  

The P4K has to be just as rigged up as the Z6 and the video above was handheld, natural light and that was it. Me and the camera. On productions that you rig any camera out the footprint will be the same no matter what. The only add on would be the Atomos if need 10 bit or 12 bit raw. 

Hybrids aren't a compromise if you pick the right one. Nikon, Canon and Sony just limit feat that you have to work around. No big deal. 

With the Z6 I can shoot green screen in the studio during the day and shot stills at  a concert the same night. You can't do that with the P4K

[webrunner5]

And then you can't come close to the output of the PK4 in video with the Z6 either. So there are compromises on any camera. I don't think many on here are buying a camera for Photo ability as a big priority other than maybe @BTM_Pix And he is likes cameras anyways, he has a Eh, a Leica, heck even a Nikon D4s, a LS300, a Sigma, on and on. Hmm, he is as crazy as I used to be!  But he makes a buck doing it, so he is forgiven. But a all in one camera wouldn't hurt his feelings I would imagine.

[Skip77]

12 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

And then you can't come close to the output of the PK4 in video with the Z6 either. So there are compromises on any camera. I don't think many on here are buying a camera on here for Photo ability as a big priority other than maybe @BTM_Pix And he is likes cameras anyways, he has a Eh, a Leica, heck even a Nikon D4s, a LS300, on and on. Hmm, he is as crazy as I used to be!  But he makes a buck doing it, so he is forgiven. But a all in one camera wouldn't hurt his feelings I would imagine.

How do you know how the Z6 12 bit Raw compares to the P4k ? You don't.  You're talking with no research or test at all. 

I'll break it down for you:

The GH5s compared well against the P4K in early test because they share the same sensor or almost identical one. The Z6 has better color, video image quality and low light then the GH5s and based on footage presented to you you know for a fact the Z6 will compare well. 

So you my friend the Z6 can come close and then some compared to the P4K.

 If you don't believe my comments then look at the video you thought was high quality photo taken from a Nikon camera. Trust your eyes not what you want to be true.

[webrunner5]

You are Totally on drugs if you think your Nikon looks as good as bRaw, or ProRes HQ on the PK4. It is not even half as good as the footage I showed from the OG BMPCC with a piss ass little s16mm sensor. You must have had a Barbie Cam before you bought the Z6 to think it is some groundbreaking improvement..

[BTM_Pix]

13 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't think many on here are buying a camera for Photo ability as a big priority other than maybe @BTM_Pix And he is likes cameras anyways, he has a Eh, a Leica, heck even a Nikon D4s, a LS300, on and on. Hmm, he is as crazy as I used to be!  But he makes a buck doing it, so he is forgiven. But a all in one camera wouldn't hurt his feelings I would imagine.

You forgot my Hasselblad

[Skip77]

35 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

You are Totally on drugs if you think your Nikon looks as good as bRaw, or ProRes HQ on the PK4. It is not even half as good as the footage I showed from the OG BMPCC with a piss ass little s16mm sensor. You must have had a Barbie Cam before you bought the Z6 to think it is some groundbreaking improvement..

Give your take on the last video I posted, the one that you thought was a photo and not from video? Again, if the Gh5s can go head to head with the P4K then based on my comparison of the Z6 to the FS7, and C200, I know it will stack up well against the P4K. 

You said the Z6 can't come close to the P4k in video? Why not? Give us you great take based on my footage and your knowledge. I also said Z6 12 bit Raw against the P4K. 

I've hired old school guys like you that think the 10 year old cam corder is still relevant and that you can't bridge the gap between cine cameras and mirrorless cameras. 

I know for a fact that the Z6 compares well next to the C200 because we shot with both at the same location. 

[Towd]

9 hours ago, Skip77 said:

You argument destroys the concept that Arri color is preferred over the RED or that Canon has great color or that good color matters at all. Since when did good or great color become something to disagree with? Good color is the goal of every camera maker and cinematographer. The last video I posted was straight out of the Z6 and as flat as I wanted to shot. 

Good color is subjective and a matter of opinion.  You can't jump through logic hoops while stating opinion as fact.  Also, I'm happy to debate cameras, but please leave out the personal attacks.  @kye is one of my favorite posters on this board and if his posts are not in the spirit of the board, I don't want to be here.

Personally, after shooting in 10 bit internal for a couple years, I think it's a requirement for  any camera in 2019.

If you have to slap an external monitor onto the camera to get 10 bit, then I think you'd be better served just getting a full video camera and rigging it out.  If hybrid is your thing, then again, I ask who wants to deal with an external monitor while shooting photos and video?

To me all the blustering about who has the best color is opinion and irrelevant unless the camera shoots 10 bit.  It's not that you can't get great results with 8 bit, the problem is the 1-2% of the shots where banding appears in the sky, or when you have to save a shot that wasn't exposed with perfect settings, or some extreme grading breaks the image, or a multitude of other gotchas where a save in post is necessary-- that's where 10 bit shines.  Raw adds even more flexibility because it opens up more extreme exposure and white balance adjustments in post.  

You can get great results in 8 bit, but a lot of the time pro cameras are about saving mistakes made on the set, or at a location that can't be easily repeated. 

 

...and until the Z6 actually shoots raw, its vaporware and irrelevant.  It's so tiresome to debate what camera will be best in the future after X spec is added...  ?