Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

[dbp]

Yep, seems most of the olympus/panasonic lenses perform well wide open. I can vouche for the panny 20mm f1.7

But I've also read reviews and seen footage from:

Panasonic 12 f1.4
Panasonic 15 f1.7
Panasonic 25 f.14
Panasonic 42.5 f1.2 / f1.7

Sigma 30 f1.4

Olympus 12 f2.0
Olympus 17 f1.8
Olympus 45 f1.8
Olympus 75 f1.8

All seem to perform pretty well wide open.  The Rokinon 12 f2.0 that I have is also pretty good at f2, especially for the cost. So there's lots of options. 

[noone]

While it IS easier to get shallower DOF with larger sensors, I don't think the difference is all that much a lot of the time.

FF lenses can have infinite DOF even with very fast lenses and M4/3 can have fairly shallow DOF even with quite slow lenses.    Much depends on subject distance.

When you really want very shallow DOF you might just need a fraction more space behind the subject (and maybe not all that much).

I am fine with people at f5.6 or f8 FF and 2.8 or f4 with M4/3.       Even 5.6 and M4/3 is ok a lot of the time with longer lenses.

I have a nice old Sigma APO macro 180mm 5.6 lens I like on FF.      Wouldn't pay a $1000 for it but I would love to be able to use it on M4/3 (it is Sony A mount so I can not use it at all at the moment).     Was nice on the A7 using an LA-EA4.

 

[jonpais]

12 minutes ago, noone said:

While it IS easier to get shallower DOF with larger sensors, I don't think the difference is all that much a lot of the time.

FF lenses can have infinite DOF even with very fast lenses and M4/3 can have fairly shallow DOF even with quite slow lenses.    Much depends on subject distance.

When you really want very shallow DOF you might just need a fraction more space behind the subject (and maybe not all that much).

I am fine with people at f5.6 or f8 FF and 2.8 or f4 with M4/3.       Even 5.6 and M4/3 is ok a lot of the time with longer lenses.

I have a nice old Sigma APO macro 180mm 5.6 lens I like on FF.      Wouldn't pay a $1000 for it but I would love to be able to use it on M4/3 (it is Sony A mount so I can not use it at all at the moment).     Was nice on the A7 using an LA-EA4.

 

But if you glance at the two screenshots I posted earlier from Jason Lanier's YouTube video, you'll see that even with lots of space between subject and background, the difference between f/1.4 and f/8 is significant, no?

[dbp]

^Yep,  there definitely is. So it helps to have the fastest m43 glass you can. The really fast and good stuff comes at a premium of course (ie 42.5 f1.2)

One of the disadvantages of m43 compared to larger sensors is that it's hard to find sufficiently fast zooms. There's the Sigmas, but f2.8 isn't really fast enough for lotsa bokeh, where as it definitely is with full frame. Much easier to find zooms f2.8 and up. 

[Inazuma]

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

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

 

Think youre unneccessarily down on m43. At iso 1600 footage from the GX80 etc is pretty clean. Thats pretty good compared to the digital and film cameras of yesteryear. It still looks decent at 3200. And from what ive seen the GH5 looks decent at 6400.  Just because its a smaller sensor doesnt mean its got to be worse in low light. In fact there are only a handful of cameras better (recent apsc and ff sony's, canon 6d, c series). 

Also i didnt really get your comments about DOF. Are you complaining about a lack of deep depth of field or shallow depth of field? Surely either one is manageable by choosing the right lens. I dont understand how you can complain about the latter and then also about it being hard to keep things in focus. That's a reality with fast primes if youre using apsc or ff too. And how does diffraction come into all this? In fact im just feeling quite confused about your post. I need to lie down.   Oh wait, im already in bed. 

[noone]

15 minutes ago, jonpais said:

But if you glance at the two screenshots from Jason Lanier's YouTube video, you'll see that even with lots of space between subject and background, the difference can be significant, no?

It CAN be.

Again, it depends.      I have not had any real issues, just occasionally would I like a bit less DOF with M4/3 and I can not remember the last time I wanted deeper DOF with FF which is sort of the opposite that I see mentioned a bit.

Honestly, while I prefer to use my A7s for my (very limited, non grading, not often seen) video use, that is because a lot is at higher ISOs than my GX7 can use (ISO 3200 limit) and has little to do with DOF.

I often shoot with 17mm FF and for that am using f5.6 or even f8 sometimes to fit a rock band in shot from close to/next to the stage. Sometimes f4 is enough but I seem to prefer it at 5.6 for bands.

    IF I was using M4/3 for live music, I would likely be using f4 most of the time if I could (don't have a wide lens that could do that).     For shots of individuals, I want shallower sometimes to isolate them from the background.     With my 100mm f2 lens I would likely be using f2 but I would do that with the same lens on both cameras but just be shooting the M4/3 camera from a bit further back.     Using a shorter lens with M4/3. I would still be pretty happy using f2.

For portraits, unless I want the one eye in focus thing, I like using f5.6 a lot FF and my favourite portrait lens for M4/3 is the little Canon 40 2.8 STM on my Kipon adapter and GX7.    I do love fast glass though and still have an old FF 85 1.2 and have had a couple of FF 50 1.2 lenses and FF 24 1.4.

 

[Mattias Burling]

I use small sensors like m4/3 and APS-C to get deep depth focus zones from a comfortable distance to the subject.
Prefocus is key for me out and about. Much faster than any AF I ever tried. But this is for stills.

[jonpais]

41 minutes ago, noone said:

It CAN be.

Again, it depends.      I have not had any real issues, just occasionally would I like a bit less DOF with M4/3 and I can not remember the last time I wanted deeper DOF with FF which is sort of the opposite that I see mentioned a bit.

Honestly, while I prefer to use my A7s for my (very limited, non grading, not often seen) video use, that is because a lot is at higher ISOs than my GX7 can use (ISO 3200 limit) and has little to do with DOF.

I often shoot with 17mm FF and for that am using f5.6 or even f8 sometimes to fit a rock band in shot from close to/next to the stage. Sometimes f4 is enough but I seem to prefer it at 5.6 for bands.

    IF I was using M4/3 for live music, I would likely be using f4 most of the time if I could (don't have a wide lens that could do that).     For shots of individuals, I want shallower sometimes to isolate them from the background.     With my 100mm f2 lens I would likely be using f2 but I would do that with the same lens on both cameras but just be shooting the M4/3 camera from a bit further back.     Using a shorter lens with M4/3. I would still be pretty happy using f2.

For portraits, unless I want the one eye in focus thing, I like using f5.6 a lot FF and my favourite portrait lens for M4/3 is the little Canon 40 2.8 STM on my Kipon adapter and GX7.    I do love fast glass though and still have an old FF 85 1.2 and have had a couple of FF 50 1.2 lenses and FF 24 1.4.

 

And that's your preference. But since you already own fast glass, you can choose - do I want deep DOF or shallow? If you have slow glass, you no longer have that choice to have nice creamy bokeh or sharp detailed backgrounds. Before mothballing my Panasonic G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8, the only way for me to throw the background out of focus to my liking was to zoom to 35mm and move in very close to the subject, but that wasn't what I wanted. The lens was dictating my composition, rather than the other way around. There's a shot in this video where I stopped following my subject and asked her to keep walking, the idea being for her to sort of disappear into the distance, which would not have been effective at all had she remained in focus. I could not have achieved this had I been shooting with a narrow aperture (I was shooting with the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 and XL SB).

 

[Phil A]

If anyone cares (and can read german), the first part of the GH5 test report from Slashcam is online.

https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Praxistest/Panasonic-GH5--10-Bit-4K-V-Log-L-Workflow--180-fps-Zeitlupe--Focus-Transition-u-a---1-.html

There's also a video in it where they graded V-Log.

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, Phil A said:

If anyone cares (and can read german), the first part of the GH5 test report from Slashcam is online.

https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Praxistest/Panasonic-GH5--10-Bit-4K-V-Log-L-Workflow--180-fps-Zeitlupe--Focus-Transition-u-a---1-.html

There's also a video in it where they graded V-Log.

Thanks for sharing that, Phil. I enjoyed the parched, monochromatic, earthen tones of the wood, stone and leaves in the first round, and SlashCAM seems quite taken with V-Log as well.

[deezid]

@jonpais
Their next clips will be without any sharpening nor noisereduction!

[jonpais]

3 minutes ago, deezid said:

@jonpais
Their next clips will be without any sharpening nor noisereduction!

You guys are killing me, but I really need to learn to lighten up, so thanks! Gotta love that 12-60mm f/2.8-4.  

[Thpriest]

Anyone tested how easy it is to manual focus on the GH5, both in the lcd and vf?

[Philip Lipetz]

http://***URL not allowed***/panasonic-gh...-free-gh5-lut/

V Log is flawed according to them

[dbp]

Not the most favorable review, seems to be not much of improvement over the GH4.

[SuperSet]

I'd like to hear Luke Neumann's take on that Cinema5d article

[Cas1]

I think it's the compression that reduces the colours recorded, like PNG that assembles a small 256 colour pallet out of the wide 32M colours.

My question is now at what image procession stage the colour pallet is reduced. In other words does the HDMI truely have 10bit UNCOMPRESSED. An external RAW recorder should be able to record the full rich colour pallet, organic noise and without the blocking and banding.

I think the 400mbit data is very much needed to record the 10bit level of detail.

Also a nice article about compression and Vlog: https://www.provideocoalition.com/v-log-l-on-the-gh4-don-t-panic/

[jonpais]

4 hours ago, Philip Lipetz said:

http://***URL not allowed***/panasonic-gh...-free-gh5-lut/

V Log is flawed according to them

Your link isn't working for me. Here's a link to the article.

[Neumann Films]

It's probably best to just buy one on Amazon, use it for the 30 day return period, and see for yourself if you like it.  Or just rent it.  So many opinions on it now, that it's almost nauseating. 

At this point you don't know who is paid by who to say what, who just wants views, and who simply doesn't know what they are doing with the camera (although they are a little easier to spot).

I don't want to put anyone down because we honestly fell into all three of those categories at one time or another.   We didn't know a lot about the camera when we made our video.  I wasn't even sure how to turn on Auto Focus...lol.

[jonpais]

38 minutes ago, Neumann Films said:

It's probably best to just buy one on Amazon, use it for the 30 day return period, and see for yourself if you like it.  Or just rent it.  So many opinions on it now, that it's almost nauseating. 

At this point you don't know who is paid by who to say what, who just wants views, and who simply doesn't know what they are doing with the camera (although they are a little easier to spot).

I don't want to put anyone down because we honestly fell into all three of those categories at one time or another.   We didn't know a lot about the camera when we made our video.  I wasn't even sure how to turn on Auto Focus...lol.

I suppose V-log is non-refundable though. ?