Chrad Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 1 hour ago, webrunner5 said: Looks pretty damn good. Nice to see. AF wise. This video on noise also shows 1600 ISO is as far as I would go. No real improvement as far as I see. Really? I'm with Orangenz on this one, the GH4 was dramatically noisier than this. 3200 here is what 800 looked like on the GH4, maybe a little bit cleaner even. Have we been conditioned to be afraid of any and all noise? Go back and look at any cinema older than 20 or so and you'll see grain everywhere. Super pristine images are a relatively recent development. Yes, technology moves forward and standards change, but I'd say that the level of noise we see at 3200 on GH5 wouldn't even be noticed by audiences on Youtube, or at regular viewing distances from a television. Cinegain and Orangenz 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenEricson Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 On 3/9/2017 at 11:24 AM, AKED-M said: @Borbarad Here a comparison gimbal to Dual IBIS etc. Man, can't fool anyone with these highlights. :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 1 hour ago, BenEricson said: Man, can't fool anyone with these highlights. :/ Color balance is way off, skin tones awful; just because someone's doing a test doesn't relieve them of the responsibility of making half-way interesting content. Like over 1/2 the clips we've seen, this guy's not only not a photographer - he's not even a capable technician. I know some here are just interested in tests, and that's all well and good. But I find it disheartening to see such a great camera in the hands of so many mediocrities. I'm not saying I'm all that great either - my color balance is off all the time, maybe my stuff is trifling - but I try. Even the expression on the subject here is like a zombie who doesn't want to be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude_ger Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Can´t believe the camera is shipping the next days and still nothing from Metabones.. A lot of people make their decision whether to buy this cam or not depending on the xl... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arikhan Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 6 hours ago, Hanriverprod said: What do you guys think about this? That's poor...quite miserable in my eyes...just take a look at the background focusing permanently back and forth - unusable with this flaw. It's the "old" Panasonic "pumping issue", sometimes in background, sometimes with the subject in foreground. It works a little bit better when defining a certain focus area and trying to keep the subject within this area, but it's far away from Sony A6x00 AF or Canon DPAF... Cas1 and Cinegain 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 33 minutes ago, Arikhan said: That's poor...quite miserable in my eyes...just take a look at the background focusing permanently back and forth - unusable with this flaw. It's the "old" Panasonic "pumping issue", sometimes in background, sometimes with the subject in foreground. It works a little bit better when defining a certain focus area and trying to keep the subject within this area, but it's far away from Sony A6x00 AF or Canon DPAF... For subjects moving toward the camera, it may very well be unusable. What I'm interested in knowing, since I intend to use the camera for vlogging from my home, is whether or not it can even stay focused on me for all of ten minutes. I've even seen Sony and Fuji fail this test, so I'm not getting my hopes up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 53 minutes ago, Arikhan said: That's poor...quite miserable in my eyes...just take a look at the background focusing permanently back and forth - unusable with this flaw. It's the "old" Panasonic "pumping issue", sometimes in background, sometimes with the subject in foreground. It works a little bit better when defining a certain focus area and trying to keep the subject within this area, but it's far away from Sony A6x00 AF or Canon DPAF... To be fair, that is the worst video in the world. I wouldn't invest any conclusions from it whatsoever. Ken Ross and Cinegain 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Davey said: To be fair, that is the worst video in the world. I wouldn't invest any conclusions from it whatsoever. You are correct, it's one of the worst. Where do they find these zombies, anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesku Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 4 hours ago, jonpais said: Color balance is way off, skin tones awful; just because someone's doing a test doesn't relieve them of the responsibility of making half-way interesting content. I think this video is for stabilization comparison, not for skin tones. The scene has very difficult lights, yellow low sun and sky blue everywhere in snow and shadows. What is right or good skin tone in the first place? People generally has very different skin colors. This GH5 video shows quite low dynamic range but it is maybe poor due to settings. zetty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arikhan Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 @Davey Quote To be fair, that is the worst video in the world. I wouldn't invest any conclusions from it whatsoever. Davey, I work intensively with Panas for documentary and interview...I know and tested the Pana focusing system extensively and it is by far the worst when comparing with Sony A6x00, Canon DPAF and Fuji X-T2. Contrast AF + DFD CAN NOT compete with phase detection + contrast detection or DPAF. I worked with several Panas and dived very deep in testing different AF modes, but...It's somehow usable in some scenarios after tweaking, but far away from a reliable method to seriously work with. Very good for wide shots and subjects moving from side to side. BUT a desaster when facing unpredictable back and forth moving of subjects. OK, when stepping aperture down, it could work, but with fast lenses and shallow DOF it's a mess... At the end of the day, this AF flaw will NOT be such important for many shooters used to focus manually, but for ENG style and Run & Gun for one man bands (journalists, etc.) it will be not first choice for moving objects and shallow DOF....Thouigh we should consider, that this camera has enough strengths... ;-) @jonpais Quote I intend to use the camera for vlogging from my home, is whether or not it can even stay focused on me for all of ten minutes My FZ1000 doen't hunt on the background back and forth when using "focus area". So move the focus area on the place you want it to be during self filming (middle. left, right, etc.), increase the size of your green focus square to the maximum possible and half push the focus button. Then start filming... This method works for me and my FZ1000 (eg during interview situations, when I am completely alone and I can not stay behind the camera but have to discuss with my interview partner), even the background should be very contrasty. I use to lighten my subject (even during daylight), so since using this method, I never had any problems with hunting forth and back).... zetty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinegain Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Arikhan said: That's poor...quite miserable in my eyes...just take a look at the background focusing permanently back and forth - unusable with this flaw. It's the "old" Panasonic "pumping issue", sometimes in background, sometimes with the subject in foreground. It works a little bit better when defining a certain focus area and trying to keep the subject within this area, but it's far away from Sony A6x00 AF or Canon DPAF... I was already like did me and webrunner5 even watched the same video?? Even on the scene with the girl it's pumping around, you can also tell by the heavy breathing of the lens. Don't know, luckily I gave up on C-AF with Panasonics a long time ago. If you must... get a Canon for the type of shots where you really need to have it. Otherwise, S-AF & MF. sgreszcz and Arikhan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 14 minutes ago, Vesku said: I think this video is for stabilization comparison, not for skin tones. The scene has very difficult lights, yellow low sun and sky blue everywhere in snow and shadows. What is right or good skin tone in the first place? People generally has very different skin colors. This GH5 video shows quite low dynamic range but it is maybe poor due to settings. Exactly, the scene has difficult lighting, so the photographer should have chosen a different location. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf33d Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Can't believe there is no comparison of AF with Sony a6500 and so on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fritz Pierre Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Not quite sure why one would base your decision to buy the GH5 on Metabones or not? jonpais 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stanley Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Vesku said: I think this video is for stabilization comparison, not for skin tones. @Vesku Spot on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fritz Pierre Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 6 hours ago, Chrad said: Really? I'm with Orangenz on this one, the GH4 was dramatically noisier than this. 3200 here is what 800 looked like on the GH4, maybe a little bit cleaner even. Have we been conditioned to be afraid of any and all noise? Go back and look at any cinema older than 20 or so and you'll see grain everywhere. Super pristine images are a relatively recent development. Yes, technology moves forward and standards change, but I'd say that the level of noise we see at 3200 on GH5 wouldn't even be noticed by audiences on Youtube, or at regular viewing distances from a television. +111...There's a reviewer who normally shoots Sony (forget the guy's name) who compared a film clip from the movie The Rock to GH5 and the noise in the $100 million plus budget shot on an Arri-flex S35 was unbelievably bad compared go the GH5.... Chrad 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 6 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said: +111...There's a reviewer who normally shoots Sony (forget the guy's name) who compared a film clip from the movie The Rock to GH5 and the noise in the $100 million plus budget shot on an Arri-flex S35 was unbelievably bad compared go the GH5.... Hugh Brownstone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webrunner5 Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Cinegain said: I was already like did me and webrunner5 even watched the same video?? Even on the scene with the girl it's pumping around, you can also tell by the heavy breathing of the lens. Sure it pumps, but it looks better than the GH4. It is reacting faster because it has more computing HP. It has its own focus computer. Do we really think it was going to be like DPAF? I am afraid we have to buy a Canon C100, C300 if you want to have reasonable AF. Panasonic cameras are not state of the art with contrast-detect only, probably never be. I don't have one on order and I doubt I ever will. They, Panasonic has dug their heels in on their focus Mumbo Jumbo, but to be honest Canon has everyone by the ass patents wise. So I guess it is better than nothing, but it still is pretty useless in the long run for video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fritz Pierre Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 13 minutes ago, jonpais said: Hugh Brownstone Hi Jonpais...just PM'd you for a bit of much needed advice on my part! Thought it best to keep my question private....thanks much in advance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webrunner5 Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 7 hours ago, Chrad said: Really? I'm with Orangenz on this one, the GH4 was dramatically noisier than this. 3200 here is what 800 looked like on the GH4, maybe a little bit cleaner even. Have we been conditioned to be afraid of any and all noise? Go back and look at any cinema older than 20 or so and you'll see grain everywhere. Super pristine images are a relatively recent development. Yes, technology moves forward and standards change, but I'd say that the level of noise we see at 3200 on GH5 wouldn't even be noticed by audiences on Youtube, or at regular viewing distances from a television. Well the ONLY reason I would buy the GH5 is for 4k. And if I am going to shoot 4k I want it clean as hell, squeaky clean. Yeah it will look digital, but lets face it, we are in a Digital world. People that look as this stuff we shot, other than us on here, could give a rat's ass about Film look, Cine look. They want to see their eyes bleed with detail! That is why they paid big ass money for their new shiny TV! So I don't want no grain, Nada! 1600 tops for me, that is my limit LoL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.