Anyone not that excited about the GH5?

[Shield3]

I'll go against the current grain here and say it's a very nice camera with a ton of cool options.  The 1080p120 and 10-bit are appealing for sure.

However it's still a "quarter size" sensor that only does CDAF in video mode, doesn't have a built-in ND, does not AF that well at all with the Metabones, still not great in low light, much tougher obviously to get wide and fast (7-14 F/4 is like 14-28 F/8 on FF), dynamic range less due to sensor size, 20MP might be a bridge too far.

Don't know - if this was a native S35 sensor with PDAF in video mode I'd be much more excited.  I thought the GH3 / GH4 footage all looked pretty good, and I haven't really seen anything that much better or different IMO on the GH5. 

On the stills size even the .64 Speedbooster isn't going to get you that FF aesthetic no matter the FPS, and there's really no way possible to get anything to match what a 300 2.8 on a FF body (like a 1dx) will give you.  They'd need to release a 150mm F/1.4.

I personally thought the size of the GH2 made more sense - after all, this is micro-four thirds, right?

 

But hey, to each their own.  Just doesn't do much for ME.  Would I take one?  Sure.  Am I going to fork out $2k?  Nah.

[dbp]

As a GH2 and GH4 owner, I am not. I don't mean that as a slight, or that it's a bad camera. Far from it. It's an incredible value and the image is pretty good.

The IBIS, 4K60p and 10 bit are great. I just haven't seen much that really wows me in terms of mojo or color. It doesn't seem all that much better than the GH4, image wise. 

I shoot with the blackmagic pocket and GH4. Pretty much 100% of the time, I prefer the image on the pocket. Without that image quality or better, it's hard to get all that excited about the GH5. Even if it's jam packed with features. 

[Chrad]

10 minutes ago, Shield3 said:

However it's still a "quarter size" sensor

Not this shit again. 

It's only a quarter size sensor if super 35 is a half size sensor and super 16 is a 1/8 size sensor. 

Low light on this thing is actually pretty good - it's not the A7S but it's comparable to the A6300, A6500. Maybe a stop under, becoming noticeable as you get to the upper end of the ISO range.  

7-14 F/4 is like 14-28 F/8 on FF

Only in terms of depth of field, but if you see the sensor size as a potential advantage that allows you deeper DOF for the same level of light transmission, then that can be an advantage. There's also a (admittedly very expensive) 7-14 2.8 lens from an Olympus, and a 7.5mm F2 manual focus almost-pancake from Laowa launches shortly. If you want to work with Speed Boosters a ' FF 18mm F1.8' is attainable with a 14mm 2.8 and a Speed Booster XL. But how often do you shoot at Ultra wide? There are a bunch of fast options for M43 from the 20mm on full frame and upward. 

I guess it just depends on what you're using it for. You have a point that the auto focus is weak vs the competition, and also about the body getting a bit big for micro 4/3.  I think that's preferable to a too small body that overheats. I'm guessing that the IBIS, 10 bit, high frame rates, etc necessitated a size increase from the GH4, along with the professional features they've added (HDMI and dual SD slots). 

If you're all about low light, a Canon cinema EOS or Sony A7s makes much more sense. 

[Shirozina]

Just like any new camera I'll be waiting for the hysteria to die down and for detailed tests and reviews to be published before I even consider it.

[aldolega]

2 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

Just like any new camera I'll be waiting for the hysteria to die down and for detailed tests and reviews to be published before I even consider it.

Same here, and I'm pretty much a Panasonic fanboy. I'll wait to see if Sony does anything at NAB, or whatever the next photo tradeshow after that is. And I'd like to see how the 400mbps firmware looks, as 150mbps is a little light for the high-motion stuff I shoot.

Ahhh, who am I kidding? If I wasn't broke I'd probably have it already

[ntblowz]

As long it makes me good amount of money who cares, my hobby is else where now that video is my profession, doing video everyday vs once or twice a week, you tend to feel numb eventually..

[Shield3]

2 hours ago, Chrad said:

Not this shit again. 

It's only a quarter size sensor if super 35 is a half size sensor and super 16 is a 1/8 size sensor. 

Low light on this thing is actually pretty good - it's not the A7S but it's comparable to the A6300, A6500. Maybe a stop under, becoming noticeable as you get to the upper end of the ISO range.  

 

 

Only in terms of depth of field, but if you see the sensor size as a potential advantage that allows you deeper DOF for the same level of light transmission, then that can be an advantage. There's also a (admittedly very expensive) 7-14 2.8 lens from an Olympus, and a 7.5mm F2 manual focus almost-pancake from Laowa launches shortly. If you want to work with Speed Boosters a ' FF 18mm F1.8' is attainable with a 14mm 2.8 and a Speed Booster XL. But how often do you shoot at Ultra wide? There are a bunch of fast options for M43 from the 20mm on full frame and upward. 

I guess it just depends on what you're using it for. You have a point that the auto focus is weak vs the competition, and also about the body getting a bit big for micro 4/3.  I think that's preferable to a too small body that overheats. I'm guessing that the IBIS, 10 bit, high frame rates, etc necessitated a size increase from the GH4, along with the professional features they've added (HDMI and dual SD slots). 

If you're all about low light, a Canon cinema EOS or Sony A7s makes much more sense. 

Fair enough.  It's late here and I'm bored.  I guess what I'm saying really is the GH5 appears to have improved on something the series is  very damn good at already; "Super 16 esqe" sharp detailed footage and rock solid reliability with good battery life.

Shooting from a tripod and 24p and on a good 4k TV that upscales 1080 properly - I doubt many could spot the difference between the hacked GH2 (used price, $350) vs. this $2k camera.  That's all I'm saying here really - it's just more of the same stuff with added features that will not have much bearing on the final output.  I always thought the other GH bodies looked great already.

These high end m4/3rd lenses are pretty damn pricey!  Just wish Panasonic would have spent more time with their video AF - they are really lagging behind Sony and Canon here.  If you're going to tout the IBIS, that assumes handheld work (gimbal or run and gun - both which greatly benefit from something like DPAF).

 

 

 

[Davey]

I have no intention of ever buying this camera but am probably more excited than many who are buying it; the reason being that the competition has to eventually step up to or surpass what Panasonic have achieved. It is an exciting camera for the entire prosumer audience in that respect, let alone those waiting to see what the a7siii has to offer when unveiled sometime over the next year.

[Chrad]

The main advances I see from this camera are the 1080p out of camera being of comparable sharpness to downscaled UHD, the ability to use stabilization with my manual primes, and usable V-Log files and monitoring without an external recorder.

The low light imprpvement and removal of the sensor crop for 4K are just bonuses.

[noone]

Not for me but that is because it is far more serious as a video camera than I could possibly need.

Stills are more important to me and for that I prefer larger sensor mirrorless cameras (but am fine with having an M4/3 second camera).

Also I shoot a lot in low light and M4/3 has been day time cameras for me (and still are at the moment).

I would love to be given one but am not paying for one (not now at least anyway).

I can see 9 out of 10 video production houses on the planet planning on getting one now (subject to anyone else coming out with something else quite soon) 

[Simon Shasha]

To be blunt, as time has gone on and more footage has come out, I have begun to question my GH5 pre-order.

I think the compression of 10bit is just too much. I find my Blackmagic Pocket and Micro to be far superior thus far compared to what I am seeing out of the GH5.

Regardless, the form-factor and IBIS has kept my pre-order in place. For live-event work, it will be my go-to camera.

[lmackreath]

After a weekend playing with the GH5 and 2 years of the GH4 I am happy with my purchase. Did the improvements warrant the hefty cost and the upgrade in general? probably not for me, as I am just an enthusiast who loves filming family occassions and taking his camera around with him whereever he goes. I am sure all the fancy stuff under the hood would be more noticeable to those using the gh5 to its limits for paid work. I was looking mainly for stabilisation as most of my work is handheld, and this camera delivers on this in leaps and bounds, especially noticeble with non OIS lenses. 

I purchased vlog and after some initial trials I am back to using standard profiles. I shot some standard footage over the weekend and showed it to my wife and mother in law , 10 bit 4k 150mb in standard profile and the first thing they both said is "wow look how amazing that looks...it feels like you are there!" Now these guys are not pixel peepers, and they watch my footage all the time and are used to high quality hd footage, but this change from the gh4 to gh5 was instantly noticeable to them, the humble viewer who normally wouldnt care if something was shot on an iphone or not!

Low light seems to be better as well, and with a bit of netvideo you can get really clean footage....

All in all if I hadnt have managed to sell my GH4 for £1000 I would not have been able to consider and\or afford the GH5. As it was though, it was a £700 purchase for me, I already had lenses so as it stands I am very happy!

 

[Davey]

13 minutes ago, lmackreath said:

After a weekend playing with the GH5 and 2 years of the GH4 I am happy with my purchase. Did the improvements warrant the hefty cost and the upgrade in general? probably not for me, as I am just an enthusiast who loves filming family occassions and taking his camera around with him whereever he goes. I am sure all the fancy stuff under the hood would be more noticeable to those using the gh5 to its limits for paid work. I was looking mainly for stabilisation as most of my work is handheld, and this camera delivers on this in leaps and bounds, especially noticeble with non OIS lenses. 

I purchased vlog and after some initial trials I am back to using standard profiles. I shot some standard footage over the weekend and showed it to my wife and mother in law , 10 bit 4k 150mb in standard profile and the first thing they both said is "wow look how amazing that looks...it feels like you are there!" Now these guys are not pixel peepers, and they watch my footage all the time and are used to high quality hd footage, but this change from the gh4 to gh5 was instantly noticeable to them, the humble viewer who normally wouldnt care if something was shot on an iphone or not!

Low light seems to be better as well, and with a bit of netvideo you can get really clean footage....

All in all if I hadnt have managed to sell my GH4 for £1000 I would not have been able to consider and\or afford the GH5. As it was though, it was a £700 purchase for me, I already had lenses so as it stands I am very happy!

 

There is no better endorsement than from the people who wouldn't know a bitrate from a pixel.

This covers 99.99% of the world

[Jimmy]

I had one pre-ordered and was gonna sell my NX1 and A7s to help fund it... But I decided to cancel and wait until I could try it out and also see what NAB brings (as I am in no desperate rush). I then used the NX1 in the alpes last month and just really enjoyed shooting with it... Might have to hang onto that for a while. (The A7s can go though!)

[Inazuma]

I'm not getting this cam but imo it's extremely undervalued for what you get

[Andrew Reid]

9 hours ago, Shield3 said:

However it's still a "quarter size" sensor that only does CDAF in video mode, doesn't have a built-in ND, does not AF that well at all with the Metabones, still not great in low light

You cannot claim a camera that shoots clean ISO 3200 at F0.7 is 'not that great in low light'

F1.2 on the Speed Booster XL = F0.768

9 hours ago, Shield3 said:

much tougher obviously to get wide and fast (7-14 F/4 is like 14-28 F/8 on FF), dynamic range less due to sensor size

Sensor dynamic range in the RAW files is around 13 stops, so same as the 1D X Mark II full frame 20MP sensor.

So not sure why you think DR is less due to the sensor size.

9 hours ago, Shield3 said:

20MP might be a bridge too far.

It's only a bridge too far if it kills low light and dynamic range. It hasn't.

9 hours ago, Shield3 said:

On the stills size even the .64 Speedbooster isn't going to get you that FF aesthetic no matter the FPS

Yes it does.

9 hours ago, Shield3 said:

and there's really no way possible to get anything to match what a 300 2.8 on a FF body (like a 1dx) will give you.  They'd need to release a 150mm F/1.4.

300mm F2.8 hardly a must-have lens for filmmaking.

Bird watching and plane spotting maybe.

The GH5 actually excels at telephoto because you can easily attain the equivalent of 800mm on full frame.

800mm!

(with the relatively small Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm)

9 hours ago, Shield3 said:

I personally thought the size of the GH2 made more sense - after all, this is micro-four thirds, right?

I do miss the old body size and ergonomics haven't exactly progressed much but it's still a small camera and the extra features have to go somewhere.

9 hours ago, Shield3 said:

But hey, to each their own.  Just doesn't do much for ME.  Would I take one?  Sure.  Am I going to fork out $2k?  Nah.

You're welcome to have your opinion but there's not much of a factual basis for it.

[hmcindie]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

300mm F2.8 hardly a must-have lens for filmmaking.

That said, I would say that a 200mm f2.8 is almost a must for filmmaking, depends on ones style though. For controlled dialogue scenes? Sublime.

[Phil A]

8 minutes ago, hmcindie said:

That said, I would say that a 200mm f2.8 is almost a must for filmmaking, depends on ones style though. For controlled dialogue scenes? Sublime.

135mm f/2 on a speedbooster, easily available.

[Kubrickian]

Andrew is in the throes of New Camera Mania (™) and it won't wear off for the GH5 until a new "pretty good" prosumer camera is released that has a lot of shortcomings but produces a decent image. 

[Ken Ross]

11 hours ago, Shield3 said:

I'll go against the current grain here and say it's a very nice camera with a ton of cool options.  The 1080p120 and 10-bit are appealing for sure.

However it's still a "quarter size" sensor that only does CDAF in video mode, doesn't have a built-in ND, does not AF that well at all with the Metabones, still not great in low light, much tougher obviously to get wide and fast (7-14 F/4 is like 14-28 F/8 on FF), dynamic range less due to sensor size, 20MP might be a bridge too far.

Don't know - if this was a native S35 sensor with PDAF in video mode I'd be much more excited.  I thought the GH3 / GH4 footage all looked pretty good, and I haven't really seen anything that much better or different IMO on the GH5. 

On the stills size even the .64 Speedbooster isn't going to get you that FF aesthetic no matter the FPS, and there's really no way possible to get anything to match what a 300 2.8 on a FF body (like a 1dx) will give you.  They'd need to release a 150mm F/1.4.

I personally thought the size of the GH2 made more sense - after all, this is micro-four thirds, right?

 

But hey, to each their own.  Just doesn't do much for ME.  Would I take one?  Sure.  Am I going to fork out $2k?  Nah.

Sure, if you're not excited about:

*4K60p

*4K slo mo

*IBIS

*Improved color science

*Obviously improved AF

*Internal 10bit 4:2:2

*Improved low light that some say are in the range of an A6300

*Higher rez sensor for better stills

Then yeah, not much to get excited about.   (I'm sure I've left off some other things)