Anyone not that excited about the GH5?

[Dave Del Real]

5 hours ago, deezid said:

It's basically adding lots of saturation, then contrast using curves (find a proper black value using the waveform!), shifting the hues (bright green a bit to yellow, yellow a bit to orange, orange slightly to red, red a bit to magenta), desaturating shadows and highlights, desaturating bright oranges (helps for skintones as well), pushing gray or low saturation mid and dark tones (not black though, leave dark skin color the way it is!) to teal a bit, adding a bit of grain.

That's it basically. :D 

Thanks so much for the tips and for your reel. Looks really good. If you don't mind me asking, are you in FCPX, Premiere or Resolve for grading?

[Shield3]

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

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

I can't think of any lens sharp wide open at F/1.2 can you?  Even my 85 II is not wonderful wide open.

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

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.

Because it's still physics.  All things being equal the smaller sensor will not match the usable (key work, usable) DR of a modern FF sensor.

They are touting the 12FPS.  A 300 2.8 is the bread and butter of a sports shooter's kit (especially for field sports.  This comment of mine was in regards to the photo side of things.

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

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)

Compare the real 800 5.6 size vs. at 100-400 at F/11.  It's a big difference in IQ and performance - there's a reason the 800 5.6 is $10k.

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

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.

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

We'll have to disagree here on the merits of my "factual basis" vs. your confirmation bias..  Glad to see you're so passionate again for the latest camera du jour.  I get it - I'm that way too sometimes.

12 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

Sure, if you're not excited about:

*4K60p

Had this on the 1dx II.  Is any of the 4k 10 bit in camera?  I don't think it is, but I'm not sure.

12 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

*4K slo mo

*IBIS

*Improved color science

*Obviously improved AF

Yeah for stills.  Does the video AF work any better, or even as good as the Canons or Sony's?  No.  Run and gun folks like video AF.

12 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

*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)

If you can honestly see a big difference between the final output of a GH4 and this, then you must be the target audience.  I'm just not seeing the big deal here, but that's me.

[Trek of Joy]

The lack of PADF makes it really tough to for me to pull the trigger. 60p and 10-bit are really awesome, but no PADF means no sale for me as I shoot a lot of stills and CDAF is so 2012. For me to go m43 I'd have to shoot the EM1.2 as well - and since Oly and Panny can't collaborate on lenses to enable full compatibility - I'd have to own overlapping lenses to take full advantage of their capabilities. For now I'll stick with the XT2.

[Hanriverprod]

17 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

The lack of PADF makes it really tough to for me to pull the trigger. 60p and 10-bit are really awesome, but no PADF means no sale for me as I shoot a lot of stills and CDAF is so 2012. For me to go m43 I'd have to shoot the EM1.2 as well - and since Oly and Panny can't collaborate on lenses to enable full compatibility - I'd have to own overlapping lenses to take full advantage of their capabilities. For now I'll stick with the XT2.

Is there a patent on pdaf? Why is Panasonic gun shy about improving their af for video?

[Laurier]

I was considering waiting for it, but went for a URSA mini 4.6k ( I know it s not the same price range).

I had a pocket, a a7s and a GH4/vlog.

For docu and corporate work I think the GH4 was a nice camera but the motion cadence/DR was bad ( the motion cadence is also quite bad on the varicam apparently )

SO... yeah the gh5 is a better GH4, is it a cinema camera, no , is it worth 2k ? maybe , but for 2k you can get a second hand ursa mini 4k and I would probably go for that, especially if you do narrative/ music video work.

[Tim Sewell]

Quote

Watch my showreel to see what I mean:

Love your reel!

[Kisaha]

Even for the people not buying this camera (like me), I can't see how NOT to be excited.

It is the first time a manufacturer gives so much, for so little money, on a perfect operational and reliable camera body, covering most of the competition, and then add some.

It is an exciting release, but people tend to forget, that GH4 was exciting back in the day too, I am a bit old, and my memory works linear, so I clearly remember that - again- Panasonic pushed the limits a little bit further with the GH4, as exactly does with the GH5 now.

Well done Pana, but not for me, yet..

we will see how it goes the next few months, what others have to say (both real world reviews and other manufacturers), the firmware updates, and maybe, down in the road, most of us we will HAVE to own one!

[neosushi]

I'm still amazed that we don't have any raw option for video. Magic Lantern hacked the 5D Mark II 4 years ago !
Not even for 1080P ? Blackmagic pocket also came out in 2013... This is not a critic just for Panasonic, I think the same about Sony and Canon. But seriously anyone interested in raw would probably be ok to pay a couple hundred euros to have it as an option. 
So I'm happy that Panasonic is moving forward and that we can all  be amazed by 10bit 422...while RAW 14bit has been available for 4 years on other DSLR... 

[Novim]

Ambivalent about it. I had GH4 for about a year, and played a lot with its myriad of settings, so much so that I regularly took C100 or XC10 (later), or BMPCC (and BMPC4K) to get job done. GH5 is 2K$ body, but if the SB is added, and some decent glass, it comes to 3,5-4K$. For that money one can buy BM Ursa mini (or, to double the sum, a new Pro). So, I agree with Laurier, and wait to see some peersuasive videos to decide about GH5. For time being, I'll postpone it.

[mechanicalEYE]

13 minutes ago, Novim said:

 GH5 is 2K$ body, but if the SB is added, and some decent glass, it comes to 3,5-4K$. For that money one can buy BM Ursa mini (or, to double the sum, a new Pro).

 It's a safe assumption that most who have owned either a GH4, or BMPCC would already own either Glass or SB that could also be used with the GH5. Also, selling used .64 SB's, and used glass can offset the cost favorably, if youre in the market for a GH5. It's all about what you want, and most importantly what you need.

[Ken Ross]

12 hours ago, Shield3 said:

Had this on the 1dx II.  Is any of the 4k 10 bit in camera?  I don't think it is, but I'm not sure.

Yeah for stills.  Does the video AF work any better, or even as good as the Canons or Sony's?  No.  Run and gun folks like video AF.

If you can honestly see a big difference between the final output of a GH4 and this, then you must be the target audience.  I'm just not seeing the big deal here, but that's me.

Yes, the GH5 does do 10 bit 4K internally.

I noticed you 'conveniently' left out 4K slo mo, IBIS and improved color science in your response. Instead you just focused on improved AF. The improved AF does work better than it did in the GH4 and that was the basis for my comparison. Some are also saying it's quite close to the A6300/A6500. I understand you're going out of your way to convince us (or yourself) why the GH5 just isn't that great. You're apparently not the target audience. 

Finally, yes, I can see a significant difference between the output of the GH4 & GH5. Apparently you can't, and that's fine. Can you see much of a difference between HD & 4K?  

[webrunner5]

45 minutes ago, Novim said:

Ambivalent about it. I had GH4 for about a year, and played a lot with its myriad of settings, so much so that I regularly took C100 or XC10 (later), or BMPCC (and BMPC4K) to get job done. GH5 is 2K$ body, but if the SB is added, and some decent glass, it comes to 3,5-4K$. For that money one can buy BM Ursa mini (or, to double the sum, a new Pro). So, I agree with Laurier, and wait to see some peersuasive videos to decide about GH5. For time being, I'll postpone it.

Yeah by the time you rig one of these DSLR style bodies to do much stuff it cost a hell of a lot of money. I just can't stand that type of form factor. Now if you need to stick one in a glove box to get a shot well that does work.

But to rig one to sort of make a living with, Nah too goofy looking, and too crazy to operate. I can pass. But the GH5 does have all you need in spades in sort of a sucky body type.

[Kubrickian]

I've used a GH4 with the speed booster and EF lenses and it's really awkward. You have a tiny camera hanging off a huge front-heavy lens. Hopefully the size increase on the GH5 makes this less cumbersome. 

[Fritz Pierre]

 

8 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah by the time you rig one of these DSLR style bodies to do much stuff it cost a hell of a lot of money. I just can't stand that type of form factor. Now if you need to stick one in a glove box to get a shot well that does work.

But to rig one to sort of make a living with, Nah too goofy looking, and too crazy to operate. I can pass. But the GH5 does have all you need in spades in sort of a sucky body type.

Although your point is understood, I think differently about it...the GH5 or 4 or a6500 is just the negative...inside a box...with the bits and pieces I need, to turn into a camera that can survive the rigors of being in the field...and if I do need a shot from inside a car or where space is limited, I can use a second body to reduce the size or take it out of whatever rig I'm using...but I'm used to large cumbersome cameras and like the mass??...once the image quality got to a certain point, rigging with rails, follow focus, external recorders and proper viewfinder for shooting outside made sense...for my sets of lenses and rigging and external gear, the only thing changing is the brain I'm using for capturing the image...my stealth set up LOL...goofy maybe?... but a pleasure to work with??

l

 

 

[Philip Lipetz]

19 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

Is there a patent on pdaf? Why is Panasonic gun shy about improving their af for video?

They say that PDAF degrades IQ, and they had to make a choice between PDAF and the vast improvements in GH5 IQ

[webrunner5]

34 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said:

 

Although your point is understood, I think differently about it...the GH5 or 4 or a6500 is just the negative...inside a box...with the bits and pieces I need, to turn into a camera that can survive the rigors of being in the field...and if I do need a shot from inside a car or where space is limited, I can use a second body to reduce the size or take it out of whatever rig I'm using...but I'm used to large cumbersome cameras and like the mass??...once the image quality got to a certain point, rigging with rails, follow focus, external recorders and proper viewfinder for shooting outside made sense...for my sets of lenses and rigging and external gear, the only thing changing is the brain I'm using for capturing the image...my stealth set up LOL...goofy maybe?... but a pleasure to work with??

l

 

 

Ehh, where is the camera in this picture? JK. I can see your point, but to have to go into menus to change things you need to change a lot, I am not into that. And to change ND filters, hell even change a lens on that would be a turd. But that does look like a nice rig.

Not my cup of tea. But I am sure there are more people like you than me. So you win, I guess.

It is just a hell of a lot easier with the camcorder like I have to change stuff, and you have to do it a LOT.

[Fritz Pierre]

36 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Ehh, where is the camera in this picture? JK. I can see your point, but to have to go into menus to change things you need to change a lot, I am not into that. And to change ND filters, hell even change a lens on that would be a turd. But that does look like a nice rig.

Not my cup of tea. But I am sure there are more people like you than me. So you win, I guess.

It is just a hell of a lot easier with the camcorder like I have to change stuff, and you have to do it a LOT.

 

36 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Ehh, where is the camera in this picture? JK. I can see your point, but to have to go into menus to change things you need to change a lot, I am not into that. And to change ND filters, hell even change a lens on that would be a turd. But that does look like a nice rig.

Not my cup of tea. But I am sure there are more people like you than me. So you win, I guess.

It is just a hell of a lot easier with the camcorder like I have to change stuff, and you have to do it a LOT.

No I agree with you completely!...is that an AF100?...this particular setup gives the operator good access to the menu wheels....quite easy once you get muscle memory...and the big screen is much needed for my eyes to see focus...I also record proress to SSD's and this rig is strictly on sticks...that still does not put it in the same league as your AF100 in terms of form factor...it's not!...my AF100 question came, as I was always a bit curious as to why there was no successor to it....always liked the AF 100...the camera is in there LOL....just posted a bad angle

[webrunner5]

It is a AG-AF100A. The last series they made. well not the last camera they made LoL. I really have no clue why the GH5, well it would not be called GH but, why the hell they did not go back to the AF100 form factor. Jesus it would be a dream camera. They are very well laid out, and for a guy my age, 70 in April, it works out damn well both the EVF, and the LCD.

As you can see you can See the body, and change the lens with ease. And you can buy the original AF100's for hell Ike 500 to 600 bucks. I got my AF100A as a new refurb for $996.54. Yeah it is Only 1080p but I have my G7 for 4k stuff and as you know they are pretty damn good for that.

I think the AF100 if for nothing else is a hell of a great teaching aide for learning how to set up Pro style cameras. This thing has 100 things you can change, and on paper none of it is really uses Auto. I mean it does AF native lenses, but I only have one of them I use. The rest are manual focus. I love how yo can use B4 lenses on them. Well you can on all the m4/3 in reality.

What I found that was pretty amazing stat was that the AF100 was the very first large sensor camera made that a person could actually afford to buy. The Sony FS100 came out soon after it.

 

[dbp]

I don't think the AF-100 sold that well. Still though, an updated effort might do better. It's probably the only request I've seen more than a new version of the blackmagic pocket, so there's clearly demand for it. 

[webrunner5]

8 minutes ago, dbp said:

I don't think the AF-100 sold that well. Still though, an updated effort might do better. It's probably the only request I've seen more than a new version of the blackmagic pocket, so there's clearly demand for it. 

No it was not a run away hit for Panasonic. The research I did before I bought this camera, and that I still do was I think would killed it more than Anything was people did not have a Clue about m4/3 sensors at the time. You have to figure the GH1 was the camera that Panny had out at the time. I think they were afraid to use them. And no Speedboosters were out, etc,etc, at the time either.

I think tons of people Still think a 4/3 sensor sucks ass to this day. They are so wrong.