Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

[Emanuel]

45 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

I'd add that my default for the GH4 has always been the one touch area option if I really wanted to use AF in video. It was slightly frustrating to see Max try everything except for it. And it does work. As a GH4/GH5 user he has given me nothing in those videos.

That's the point. This has been ignored and followed by canceled orders based on YT testers.

Here's another one, seems happier:

 

[Hanriverprod]

2 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

I own 2 GH4's....although they are "video cameras" as is the Alexa and all Reds and the Sony F 35...I have to say I'm completely baffled by your statement that the GH4 & now 5 looks "videoy" and "anemic"...you're kidding, right!....or is this where we're going next, now, that AF is getting exhausting?

That's my opinion. Is that okay?

[midloch]

32 minutes ago, Hanriverprod said:

That's my opinion. Is that okay?

Videoy? Like camcoder? You should change your glasses! Lets see:

 

[jonpais]

2 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Disclaimer: I dont have the camera, Im not saying its good or bad. I haven't watched Max, Kens or any other AF test. Personally I would never use AF anyway. Its to slow and imprecise for my way of doing things.

So this comment is not about the AF in the GH5, its about AF in general.

But, If it really comes down to "learning" how to use the AF its at least safe to say its not great.

Ive said the same thing about WB in Sony Slog. Some say it requires practice and testing. Bullshit imo. A $3K camera that needs special treatment for something so fundamental and simple as WB... thats just a bad WB.

An AF in a $2K camera that needs more fiddling than MF just to get it going... sounds like a pretty mediocre AF imo.

Again, not saying the camera is bad, so take a deep breath before defending. All AF is mediocre at best imo. I dont use AF on any camera. I hardly ever use it for stills (to slow) so I couldn't care less. I was just thinking out loud about what Ive read in this thread. 

There are far more important things to factor when deciding on a camera imo. AF in video isnt at the top of the list. In fact, its not even on the list.

Long before the release of the GH5, I remarked how adjusting even relatively straightforward settings like white balance, curves and contrast on cameras like the G80/85 was confusing for some people (myself included), and that it would result in yet more perplexity for photographers not accustomed to setting things like knee, gamma, hue, etc. on the GH5. But never could I have imagined that custom AF settings would create such a stir. 

6 minutes ago, midloch said:

Videoy? Like camcoder? You should change your glasses! Lets see:

 

We've already seen this video, several times in different threads, OK? Hanriverprod is entitled to his opinion.

[Emanuel]

Realistically true. I think it's also because life moves too fast today, well, much beyond media convergence of nowadays. People literally have no patience to set up stuff with detail. And these things fully require it. I left the plead to Yuryev on his comparison video, let's see if he adds his input on such request: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEsSsdTKJs4&lc=z122fzywwwqsidcbd04chxzyhqyfcfxhlkw0k

Something I believe as useful on his door (not only because of the contrast of its lines as Michael Ma wrote, nice catch) is the fact he's now at devil's advocate angle. His words from his interpretation over the GH5 manual is a finest example of all this agitation around and produced by his viral YT video tests. It would be nice to see his new entry if so happens.

 

[Hanriverprod]

2 minutes ago, midloch said:

Videoy? Like camcoder? You should change your glasses! Lets see:

 

Footage is nice, probably best I've seen so far. But he's shooting on a grey day, muted palette, slo-mo, some very shallow dof shots, tracking, so yeah it looks nice. It works with what he's got which is what he should be doing. Still, I agree this looks good.

[midloch]

1 minute ago, Hanriverprod said:

Footage is nice, probably best I've seen so far. But he's shooting on a grey day, muted palette, slo-mo, some very shallow dof shots, tracking, so yeah it looks nice. It works with what he's got which is what he should be doing. Still, I agree this looks good.

Yes GH5 is for people who know how to handle and than the results are great and filmic.

[Mattias Burling]

25 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Long before the release of the GH5, I remarked how adjusting even relatively straightforward settings like white balance, curves and contrast on cameras like the G80/85 was confusing for some people (myself included), and that it would result in yet more perplexity for photographers not accustomed to setting things like knee, gamma, hue, etc. on the GH5. But never could I have imagined that custom AF settings would create such a stir. 

I guess its because Im old fashioned and started out in TV a long time ago before the DSLR boom. So Im used to professional gear where setting a custom white balance is an easy thing that an ENG-shooter does ten times a day. 

Same with focus. I need it to work, so use manual.

I guess thats why I shoot so much film and prefer cameras like Leica. Less fiddle faddle and instead focus on the craft and cteating.

We all like different things and work in different ways. You said once you liked to use tele for street shooting while many if not most of us like to get in close to the subject. Nothing wrong with either approach. Just different tastes.

[Hanriverprod]

1 minute ago, midloch said:

Yes GH5 is for people who know how to handle and than the results are great and filmic.

I wouldn't call that filmic. It looks nice, but filmic? No. Nice video, to my eyes which is great. Now I been seeing some of the 3k footage of the hacked 5d iii and to me that looks filmic. It doesn't look soft and messy like the hd hack. Now it's sharp plus nice and thick with character like the bm, red and alexa cameras and some canon. But hey, that's just like my opinion man. Still, I would like a gh5 to play with.

[PannySVHS]

You son of a gun of a GH5 thread. Shame on you, GH5! You broke that beautiful record of the GX85 thread for

the longest and most beautiful thread! Keep on rockin!

By the way, GX85 files are easy to grade to get awesome colors from. So GH5 will even rock stronger color wise!

[Ken Ross]

8 hours ago, jonpais said:

Maybe Panasonic's  algorithms don't recognize Max's brother. 

I'd have given you a 'like', but the site is telling me I'm all out of likes for the day. That's kind of like "Air Supplys", I'm all out of love.

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

Long before the release of the GH5, I remarked how adjusting even relatively straightforward settings like white balance, curves and contrast on cameras like the G80/85 was confusing for some people (myself included), and that it would result in yet more perplexity for photographers not accustomed to setting things like knee, gamma, hue, etc. on the GH5. But never could I have imagined that custom AF settings would create such a stir. 

 

I think the point is that the settings are there, but you can choose not to use them...and you'll still get excellent results. I'm more than mildly amused by all the futzing with +5, -5, speed, sensitivity etc. I set the damn thing to central area focusing, leave every other AF setting at default, and my results seem to be 100X better than Max's. Did I say I want to hit my head against the wall.

[Nodnarb]

16 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

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 literally said your test were a 'little different', since you used a different lens, then you quote me as saying 'very different'. You then ask how I can possibly ignore your test result, after I said your autofocus test were helpful. Do you always try so hard to create conflict or just having a bad day? Nobody is ignoring you. You are important too.

[mjfan]

This is a gh5 with a pro colorist, looks very filmic 

 

[Ken Ross]

57 minutes ago, Nodnarb said:

I literally said your test were a 'little different', since you used a different lens, then you quote me as saying 'very different'. You then ask how I can possibly ignore your test result, after I said your autofocus test were helpful. Do you always try so hard to create conflict or just having a bad day? Nobody is ignoring you. You are important too.

I re-read your post and I apologize, you are correct. Part of this was the frustration I was feeling in that it was only Max's tests that people were paying attention to and judging the camera on. It wasn't just the ignoring of my videos showing things to the contrary, but all the other GH5 videos that also showed the AF not to be nearly as bad as it appeared in Max's tests.

[Andy J]

11 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

Footage is nice, probably best I've seen so far. But he's shooting on a grey day, muted palette, slo-mo, some very shallow dof shots, tracking, so yeah it looks nice. It works with what he's got which is what he should be doing. Still, I agree this looks good.

"But that's not fair! He shot it in a 'cinematic fashion'! It shouldn't count! I want a camera that looks cinematic when I just point it at stuff without taking any forethought about lighting, composition, camera movement, dof, color, etc." 

Sorry, but I just found your comment too funny to leave alone. I hope you don't mind me teasing you just a bit for it. It's all in good fun I promise.

You're totally on the right track, but just haven't quite connected all the dots possibly. Everything you mentioned and more is what MAKES something look cinematic. How much worse would it have looked if he made poor decisions in regards to all of the things you mentioned? I think it would look much worse. He obviously is talented and has good taste. Now let's pretend that he actually shot it on an Alexa with cinema glass and ask how much worse would it look if he instead shot it on a GH5 with ok glass. I'd argue that it would take a fairly small hit to the overall look and feel. Worse? sure, but compared to shooting the same thing with mediocre light, compositions, camera movement, dof, and motion it wouldn't even compare. And what if he used the Alexa to shoot a mediocre version of this with bad light, composition, etc? Would it all of a sudden look "cinematic"? Not a chance! We'd be commenting that it looks too video-ish. So what's the common factor here? I'd say it's not really the camera (maybe a very small percentage to the overall look) and that it's everything you so easily identified and dismissed about his footage.

FYI, an Arri Alexa is simply a digital video camera. It's a very nice digital video camera, but that's what it is. The world seems full of nice digital video cameras these days. It's probably best to choose one that works for you and treat it as if it's the best digital video camera in the world. Relatively speaking, as far as the history of digital video cameras goes, your choice will probably be in the top 2-3 percent.

[Emanuel]

This is not good for any serious shooter and picture lover. Not because of AF but because of people focused to have decent IQ from affordable professional standards in the hands of many more talented artists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGBZugOhi8o

 

[Orangenz]

27 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

This is not good for any serious shooter and picture lover. Not because of AF but because of people focused to have decent IQ from affordable professional standards in the hands of many more talented artists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGBZugOhi8o

 

Great example of post I don't understand. You might even be trying to add an extra layer to the translation by using sarcasm? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I just have no idea what you're saying here.

[hyalinejim]

+1 @Emanuel you seem like a smart fellow, but 50% of the time I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, although you do seem to be talking about something. And I'm a smart fellow as well.

Of course, if I were to try posting in Portuguese you'd have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about... 100% of the time!

[Hanriverprod]

53 minutes ago, Andy J said:

"But that's not fair! He shot it in a 'cinematic fashion'! It shouldn't count! I want a camera that looks cinematic when I just point it at stuff without taking any forethought about lighting, composition, camera movement, dof, color, etc." 

Sorry, but I just found your comment too funny to leave alone. I hope you don't mind me teasing you just a bit for it. It's all in good fun I promise.

You're totally on the right track, but just haven't quite connected all the dots possibly. Everything you mentioned and more is what MAKES something look cinematic. How much worse would it have looked if he made poor decisions in regards to all of the things you mentioned? I think it would look much worse. He obviously is talented and has good taste. Now let's pretend that he actually shot it on an Alexa with cinema glass and ask how much worse would it look if he instead shot it on a GH5 with ok glass. I'd argue that it would take a fairly small hit to the overall look and feel. Worse? sure, but compared to shooting the same thing with mediocre light, compositions, camera movement, dof, and motion it wouldn't even compare. And what if he used the Alexa to shoot a mediocre version of this with bad light, composition, etc? Would it all of a sudden look "cinematic"? Not a chance! We'd be commenting that it looks too video-ish. So what's the common factor here? I'd say it's not really the camera (maybe a very small percentage to the overall look) and that it's everything you so easily identified and dismissed about his footage.

FYI, an Arri Alexa is simply a digital video camera. It's a very nice digital video camera, but that's what it is. The world seems full of nice digital video cameras these days. It's probably best to choose one that works for you and treat it as if it's the best digital video camera in the world. Relatively speaking, as far as the history of digital video cameras goes, your choice will probably be in the top 2-3 percent.

I said it looks nice but still videoy. To me something being filmic is not just technique but the quality of image itself - it emulates film. Digital systems like arri and red get close. Also you don't know what experience I have that led me to my opinions. Cameras like gh5 look nice but videoy. It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move. Don't know why panny prosumer images feel this way to me but they do. But again that's just my opinion. Don't know why you think I'm being childish about it. I guess I hurt your feelings. If I did I apologize.

Crazy people are so sensitive about a thing like a camera. I guess these days people being a special snowflake isn't enough, there chosen brands need to be special too. To me it's there to tell my story and I always wish it worked better no matter the brand. Maybe these brands keep innovating because some of us are never satisfied. If it was all technique why are these product cycles getting shorter? 

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, Orangenz said:

Great example of post I don't understand. You might even be trying to add an extra layer to the translation by using sarcasm? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I just have no idea what you're saying here.

 

1 hour ago, hyalinejim said:

+1 @Emanuel you seem like a smart fellow, but 50% of the time I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, although you do seem to be talking about something. And I'm a smart fellow as well.

Of course, if I were to try posting in Portuguese you'd have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about... 100% of the time!

 

I'm sorry guys for my non-native English! : D Trust me, even in Portuguese, my writing (just trying to go after my thoughts) is not so straightforward, as I'd like and it should be variably assigned. In English, much more labyrinthic, I believe. At times, it is per style such as subliminal speech to be read between-the-lines indeed. This happens especially with people like you I am used to read in a frequent basis.

My bad I fail to leave it with you when happens. You are not the first ones nor the last ones to notice, I guess. I love complex stuff, true. I bet that's the reason why GH5 AF system attracts me enough to advocate myself in Panasonic's behalf... LOL

Take a look in the messages I left there. Maybe they can help to follow my thinking on topic, I think so :-)

BTW, thanks for your care and earlier compliments too!

E :-)