Anyone not that excited about the GH5?

[dbp]

Honestly, I think what killed it was the IQ. It just wasn't that great. The much cheaper GH2 was better. A bit sharper and handled highlights better. Then the hack hit and it was all over.

On paper, it should've been a killer, but the look/mojo wasn't there for people coming from 5Ds, etc. I don't blame them.  M43 lens selection was definitely lacking compared to what it is now, too. 

[webrunner5]

17 minutes ago, dbp said:

Honestly, I think what killed it was the IQ. It just wasn't that great. The much cheaper GH2 was better. A bit sharper and handled highlights better. Then the hack hit and it was all over.

On paper, it should've been a killer, but the look/mojo wasn't there for people coming from 5Ds, etc. I don't blame them.  M43 lens selection was definitely lacking compared to what it is now, too. 

Oh that GH2 stuff it a total line of bull. The Af100 has a way better Cine look to it. I have 200, hell 300 bookmarked things in a folder that say just the opposite. Sharp does not always equate to better, and the GH2 was not really any sharper. The AF100 can be made to look even sharper. It had a lot better sensor in it. That is not what a AF100 was, and still is not about.

Would you call a Arri Alexa a Sharp camera. I would not. The AF100 does not have a digital camera look, just like a Arri does not either. Not saying a AF100 is a Arri by any means, I wish!

But yeah, the AF100 was no beauty queen at handling highlights. That be true. But I have read a lot of comments about it taking 4 to 6 months of using a AF100 to get pretty good at one. That just shows how complicated it can be to use out of the box.

[dbp]

Sharpness isn't always better, agreed. There's a threshold to where stuff is too soft for my taste. Early Canon stuff and the AF100 would fall in that camp. I've seen comparisons between the two and the GH2 was always a bit sharper, and looked better. Especially with blown out spots. AF100 would go orange and cyan in the highlights. Once the GH2 got the hack, the differences in compression artifacts became apparent as well. 

GH2 was definitely a better sensor and I'd wager many more would agree with me. I was following the discussions here, on DVXuser and hack forum quite regularly. 

Alexa absolutely resolves more detail than the AF100. I would call it a camera capable of very sharp images if so desired. AF100, not so much. 

 

[webrunner5]

21 minutes ago, dbp said:

Sharpness isn't always better, agreed. There's a threshold to where stuff is too soft for my taste. Early Canon stuff and the AF100 would fall in that camp. I've seen comparisons between the two and the GH2 was always a bit sharper, and looked better. Especially with blown out spots. AF100 would go orange and cyan in the highlights. Once the GH2 got the hack, the differences in compression artifacts became apparent as well. 

GH2 was definitely a better sensor and I'd wager many more would agree with me. I was following the discussions here, on DVXuser and hack forum quite regularly. 

Alexa absolutely resolves more detail than the AF100. I would call it a camera capable of very sharp images if so desired. AF100, not so much. 

 

Well the Arri is a s35 sensor using 16bit Codec. I would hope it is better LoL. Oh and they cost 45,000 bucks. Well we agree to disagree on what is a better camera, AF100, GH2. I have had one, and a GH3 also. I would still have them if I thought they were Better, and I am not talking about handling. The G7 I have makes the AF100 look bad in certain ways. Other than using it in 4k I would NEVER shoot it in 1080p and use the output of it over the AF100. Not even close. It looks like, the G7, like a freaking digital camera. I hate digital camera looks, and I am not alone.

Now if I was shooting ads for clients I guess I would go for the sharpness in 4k. Even down sampled down to 1080p. I am sure the client wants to see his or her widget stand out. That sort of sounds obscene.   But that is not Cinematic, Filmic, and that is why I bought the AF100.

But I guess those qualities do not pay the bills sad to say. And if lots of people agreed with me they would still be selling the AF100. Point taken.

[Shield3]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Oh that GH2 stuff it a total line of bull. The Af100 has a way better Cine look to it. I have 200, hell 300 bookmarked things in a folder that say just the opposite. Sharp does not always equate to better, and the GH2 was not really any sharper. The AF100 can be made to look even sharper. It had a lot better sensor in it. That is not what a AF100 was, and still is not about.

Would you call a Arri Alexa a Sharp camera. I would not. The AF100 does not have a digital camera look, just like a Arri does not either. Not saying a AF100 is a Arri by any means, I wish!

But yeah, the AF100 was no beauty queen at handling highlights. That be true. But I have read a lot of comments about it taking 4 to 6 months of using a AF100 to get pretty good at one. That just shows how complicated it can be to use out of the box.

I completely agree with you - in 2012 I shot a ton with my AF100 and GH2, and IMO the AF100 was still better even with the hack on the GH2.  Something has to be said for the form factor, built in ND, superior audio, and the fact it was a 2.07 MP camera that didn't have to convert, line skip, pixel bin or downscale at all to get true 1080p.  I always enjoyed my AF100; almost as much as my c100 II now.

[webrunner5]

8 minutes ago, Shield3 said:

I completely agree with you - in 2012 I shot a ton with my AF100 and GH2, and IMO the AF100 was still better even with the hack on the GH2.  Something has to be said for the form factor, built in ND, superior audio, and the fact it was a 2.07 MP camera that didn't have to convert, line skip, pixel bin or downscale at all to get true 1080p.  I always enjoyed my AF100; almost as much as my c100 II now.

Ah lucky dog. I was wanting a C100 mkII. Just sort of out of my Pay Grade as they say. Being retired it is pretty hard to justify it, but damn, if I was younger, working overtime, I would have to have one. You made a very good choice buying one. Grats. 

Yeah I am pretty impressed with the AF100. No regrets. Like I said, a great learning tool. And so is the C100. Kind of a no excuses cameras. If it is not good, it is because You are Not good thing.

[Shield3]

11 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

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?  

I wasn't impressed with the 96FPS on the GH4 and I haven't seen anything that "wows" me about the 180FPS on the GH5.  The AF is just unacceptable in video mode even with native glass.

Can I see a difference between HD and 4k?  Hmm.  I have 3 UHD sets in my home that upscale everything to UHD.  So for really "good" HD (C100 II) vs. crappy 4k (Canon 5d IV) I prefer the upscaled 1080p.  Of course I can tell the difference, but there is so much more than just resolution and sharpness for good video.  Smooth glider shots, low angle, multiple camera, shallow DOF as needed, skin tones, story telling all are more important TO ME than absolute detail.  I am 20/20 at least in one eye and from a few feet away playing back 4k vs. 1080p on a 60" Vizio set?  No, I can't really tell the difference, and neither can anyone in my family.  My kids have perfect vision...so.

I will say years later the 240FPS of the Sony FS-700 still dazzles friends, so does the C-log on the C100 II and the raw 5d3 footage.  Same for the A7s in low light.  For me personally the GH2 and AF100 footage holds up remarkably too after 5 years.  I find 4k a bit of a bother - I'd rather shoot really good 1080p60 for action and 1080p24 with good colors for everything else.  Or setup multiple cameras - cropping 4k still won't give you a completely different shot.  But, that's me.

[webrunner5]

Yeah I admit I am not in the least way excited about the GH5.  Heck I never had a GH4 either. Way more cameras I would buy, maybe a bit more money than the GH5 if I had 2000 bucks to spend.

There are 15 thousand dollar cameras out there for close to the same money used, that were 15k for a reason back in the day. They are a bargain in this day and age.

[dbp]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Well the Arri is a s35 sensor using 16bit Codec. I would hope it is better LoL. Oh and they cost 45,000 bucks. Well we agree to disagree on what is a better camera, AF100, GH2. I have had one, and a GH3 also. I would still have them if I thought they were Better, and I am not talking about handling. The G7 I have makes the AF100 look bad in certain ways. Other than using it in 4k I would NEVER shoot it in 1080p and use the output of it over the AF100. Not even close. It looks like, the G7, like a freaking digital camera. I hate digital camera looks, and I am not alone.

Now if I was shooting ads for clients I guess I would go for the sharpness in 4k. Even down sampled down to 1080p. I am sure the client wants to see his or her widget stand out. That sort of sounds obscene.   But that is not Cinematic, Filmic, and that is why I bought the AF100.

But I guess those qualities do not pay the bills sad to say. And if lots of people agreed with me they would still be selling the AF100. Point taken.

I'm with ya on liking cinematic looks over something too digital. I just found the AF100 highlight clipping was unpleasant and definitely screamed video to me. The color science was pretty blah as well. So was the GH2 color, for that matter. It just seemed better. 

Good 1080p is fine by me, I don't care that much about 4K. It's all about color and dynamic range for me. I realize that color in particular is subjective, so to each their own.

4 minutes ago, Shield3 said:

I wasn't impressed with the 96FPS on the GH4 and I haven't seen anything that "wows" me about the 180FPS on the GH5.  The AF is just unacceptable in video mode even with native glass.

Can I see a difference between HD and 4k?  Hmm.  I have 3 UHD sets in my home that upscale everything to UHD.  So for really "good" HD (C100 II) vs. crappy 4k (Canon 5d IV) I prefer the upscaled 1080p.  Of course I can tell the difference, but there is so much more than just resolution and sharpness for good video.  Smooth glider shots, low angle, multiple camera, shallow DOF as needed, skin tones, story telling all are more important TO ME than absolute detail.  I am 20/20 at least in one eye and from a few feet away playing back 4k vs. 1080p on a 60" Vizio set?  No, I can't really tell the difference, and neither can anyone in my family.  My kids have perfect vision...so.

I will say years later the 240FPS of the Sony FS-700 still dazzles friends, so does the C-log on the C100 II and the raw 5d3 footage.  Same for the A7s in low light.  For me personally the GH2 and AF100 footage holds up remarkably too after 5 years.  I find 4k a bit of a bother - I'd rather shoot really good 1080p60 for action and 1080p24 with good colors for everything else.  Or setup multiple cameras - cropping 4k still won't give you a completely different shot.  But, that's me.

96fps mode is pretty crappy. I'll use it for the effect, but it's a noticeable drop off. Better than not having the option at all and I applaud Panasonic for at least offering 180fps.

Interesting anecdote and not all that surprising. 5D3 raw and c100 II both consistently look great. 

[Shield3]

14 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Ah lucky dog. I was wanting a C100 mkII. Just sort of out of my Pay Grade as they say. Being retired it is pretty hard to justify it, but damn, if I was younger, working overtime, I would have to have one. You made a very good choice buying one. Grats. 

Yeah I am pretty impressed with the AF100. No regrets. Like I said, a great learning tool. And so is the C100. Kind of a no excuses cameras. If it is not good, it is because You are Not good thing.

Yeah I'm 43 and supervise about 25 people at the US federal gov't.  I don't drink or gamble and have a modest home nearly paid for with 2 kids (age 10 and 7) so I pretty much blow a ton of my extra income on camera crap.  I generally buy used gear and hold onto my glass much longer than bodies.  I've heard the phrase "you date the camera but marry the glass".  The AF-100 does blow out the highlights pretty quickly but for a well exposed scene it still impresses.  Just has that cinematic look especially paired with the Voitlander 25 F/.95 lens - you should at least pick that one up if you haven't already.

With a firmware update I thought the AF100 would do 1080p60 and have the over/undercrank option (both things the Gh2 wouldn't do, along with the usual built in ND and XLR audio, dual memory slots, and all the other bells and whistles of a "real" camera.

Another random thought off the top of my head - as I get older I find myself not doing things anymore that are a huge hassle even if it means a slightly improved result - i.e. bother with raw on the 5d3.  Sometimes the younger crowd will forego conveniences just to squeeze out a ton of extra IQ - just like back in the day we did to get our cars faster - I've had friends with 800 HP Mustangs that was stiff as a board and uncomfortable as hell to ride in - at my age I want the 300 HP car that I can take my family in.  Ultimate speed doesn't matter, and neither does ultimate resolution or detail.  Ready to shoot and easy to use goes a long way with me, so I'll reach for the camera with better audio, built-in ND and quick to shoot - not something I have to transcode, convert, grade (heavily) or dick around with for hours.  I'm old.

[Emanuel]

On 27/03/2017 at 7:07 PM, deezid said:

I actually trust Kholi as well, but not this time. Comparing V-Log to S-Log on the A7sII? C'mon... 
If it is nearly as good as V-Log on the GH4 it'll put the A7sII to shame in terms of color science.

Watch my showreel to see what I mean:

Almost 99% internal V-Log!

 

 

And yes, I've been using the a7sII quite a lot, always struggeling with the color, even using different profiles and combinations (such as Cine4, Slog2/3 SGamut 3.cine/3/2 etc). On the GH4 I just hit the portrait profile with:
Contrast 0
Sharpening -5
NR -5
Saturation -2
Hue 1

And it looks almost identical to the color corrected RAW output of the FS5...

Man, your showreel is one of the best GH4 footy samples I and many others have ever seen here or everywhere else *thumbsup* Panasonic should take this in consideration for new releases. You 're Da Man... I already had watched it, just clueless you were posting in these boards. Grading is your surname, pal, kudos to your associates and clientele ; )

E :-)

[webrunner5]

1 minute ago, dbp said:

I'm with ya on liking cinematic looks over something too digital. I just found the AF100 highlight clipping was unpleasant and definitely screamed video to me. The color science was pretty blah as well. So was the GH2 color, for that matter. It just seemed better. 

Good 1080p is fine by me, I don't care that much about 4K. It's all about color and dynamic range for me. I realize that color in particular is subjective, so to each their own.

96fps mode is pretty crappy. I'll use it for the effect, but it's a noticeable drop off. Better than not having the option at all and I applaud Panasonic for at least offering 180fps.

Interesting anecdote and not all that surprising. 5D3 raw and c100 II both consistently look great. 

Well I will be the first to admit Panasonic is sure as hell not noted for a Cinematic look on any of their cameras other than the Varicam, and it is not selling like hotcakes I think. But Panasonic has brought damn good video cameras to the masses, for not a heck of a lot of money. They have pushed the envelope as they say pretty far.

[Shield3]

10 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah I admit I am not in the least way excited about the GH5.  Heck I never had a GH4 either. Way more cameras I would buy, maybe a bit more money than the GH5 if I had 2000 bucks to spend.

There are 15 thousand dollar cameras out there for close to the same money used, that were 15k for a reason back in the day. They are a bargain in this day and age.

True, very true.  In fact the only reason I even started this thread was all the front page topics gushing over the GH5 and Andrew saying how Canon needs to get on the ball.  Canon is still #1 in the camera world, has excellent stills cameras and wonderful video AF - there's a reason you see them all over all pro sports venues.  Canon could release a camera with all the tech they have now and sell a billion of them - IE 80d body with a FF sensor, the EVF from the C300/C100 II, 305 M/bit codec, 4k60 and 1080p120.  You also know Canon sure as hell could make fast STM primes - their bread and butter are with stills photogs though who want the much faster USM focusing.

[Emanuel]

3 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Well I will be the first to admit Panasonic is sure as hell not noted for a Cinematic look on any of their cameras other than the Varicam, and it is not selling like hotcakes I think. But Panasonic has brought damn good video cameras to the masses, for not a heck of a lot of money. They have pushed the envelope as they say pretty far.

Right. And it just depends on the shooter. People can always go to school and start to actually learn how to set the stuff up and put it out.

[Shield3]

Despite starting this thread, I hope Panasonic sells a ton of the GH5's and all their other bodies.  You have to get behind any company that is giving you their all to COMPETE, along with being rock solid workhorses.  Never had any issues ever with Panasonic bodies.

[webrunner5]

Just now, Emanuel said:

Right. And it just depends on the shooter. People can always go to school and start to actually learn how to set the stuff up and put it out.

Very true. And like they say, Story is still King. You could shoot a killer script on a super 8mm camera and win a Oscar for Cine Photography.

14 minutes ago, Shield3 said:

Y

 

Another random thought off the top of my head - as I get older I find myself not doing things anymore that are a huge hassle even if it means a slightly improved result - i.e. bother with raw on the 5d3.  Sometimes the younger crowd will forego conveniences just to squeeze out a ton of extra IQ - just like back in the day we did to get our cars faster -

Oh my God, don't let mercer see that statement!!  I must admit 14bit output on the 5D mkIII is pretty damn Cinematic looking. Along the lines of a BMPCC. But yeah a pretty big hassle to do it. But nothing good is easy as hell to do or everyone would be doing it. 

[Trek of Joy]

2 hours ago, Philip Lipetz said:

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

I have a hard time believing that one. A few hundred pixels out of 20 million, please. But what I would believe is the additional engineering required to have a competent PADF system while shooting stills and video was beyond the budget/time allowed for release, especially given the recent restructuring - they're trying to reel in costs in a sharply declining market. They've had years to figure this one out, the gap between Panny's AF and others will get wider as face detection, eye AF, and AF-c tracking get further refined.

The 4k/60p filmmaker market is minuscule compared to the general buying public - PADF on the GH5 would have tricked down to the volume models - which is the segment that needs it the most. In 2016 ILC sales were down another 12% to over 11m units, compacts continued to crater and shipped 12m units, for the first time in ages 2017 will see more ILC's shipped than compacts, of course due to phones. When soccer moms go to buy a "good camera" to move up from their iPhones and see the difference Canon's dual pixel AF makes compared to DFD as only one stays locked onto the subject walking around the store, its an easy decision. 

Personally, I haven't seen anything that constituted a "vast improvement" in IQ. Marginal yes, vast no. The current gen of m43 sensors has pretty much peaked IQ wise, until Sony goes BSI or the long rumored organic sees the light of day, there are no vast improvements to be made in m43 IQ world. Or any other for that matter, its always incremental.

The GH5 still looks like a great camera, if I didn't shoot 25k+ stills a year I would probably get one. But for me, DFD doesn't cut it. As always YMMV.

On 3/27/2017 at 11:37 PM, deezid said:

I actually trust Kholi as well, but not this time. Comparing V-Log to S-Log on the A7sII? C'mon... 
If it is nearly as good as V-Log on the GH4 it'll put the A7sII to shame in terms of color science.

Watch my showreel to see what I mean:

Almost 99% internal V-Log!

 

 

And yes, I've been using the a7sII quite a lot, always struggeling with the color, even using different profiles and combinations (such as Cine4, Slog2/3 SGamut 3.cine/3/2 etc). On the GH4 I just hit the portrait profile with:
Contrast 0
Sharpening -5
NR -5
Saturation -2
Hue 1

And it looks almost identical to the color corrected RAW output of the FS5...

Amazing, I agree with others, a grading tutorial that demonstrates the steps you posted would be something I'd bookmark.

[webrunner5]

You know we are damn fixated on the camera end of the equation, but what if were twice as good at editing, grading, audio, 3 times as good or more?  I know that is my weakest Link.

I would think that would have more of an effect than our cameras in the end. Thoughts.

[dbp]

14 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

You know we are damn fixated on the camera end of the equation, but what if were twice as good at editing, grading, audio, 3 times as good or more?  I know that is my weakest Link.

I would think that would have more of an effect than our cameras in the end. Thoughts.

Definitely. I am ok shooter, ok editor (being generous). I know little about grading or doing audio well. My skills have absolutely not outgrown my GH4 or pocket.

but gear talk is fun dammit! 

[webrunner5]

Oh yeah, Video camera GAS is pretty awesome or we would not be on here!  And Andrew keeps buying the camera of the month to taunt us into switching! I think he does it on purpose LoL.