GH5 focus excellence

[wolf33d]

"This weeks GH5 autofocus test from Max Yuryev created a huge controversy on the web when he claimed the GH5 autofocus sucks. UPDATE: Max and Joseph had a joint conversation with some very interesting insights about how the GH5 works. I embedded the video on top of this post and I want to quickly thank both for the very constructive way they sorted out this!

The most interesting info for me comes at the end of the video. it seems like that when the Panasonic Gh5 shoots at 4K internally the autofocus is no more working at it’s best. And Max guess is that the processing power isn’t simply enough."

 

ha-ha-ha

[Emanuel]

15 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

"This weeks GH5 autofocus test from Max Yuryev created a huge controversy on the web when he claimed the GH5 autofocus sucks. UPDATE: Max and Joseph had a joint conversation with some very interesting insights about how the GH5 works. I embedded the video on top of this post and I want to quickly thank both for the very constructive way they sorted out this!

The most interesting info for me comes at the end of the video. it seems like that when the Panasonic Gh5 shoots at 4K internally the autofocus is no more working at it’s best. And Max guess is that the processing power isn’t simply enough."

 

ha-ha-ha

Go on Atomos and you'll finally have a P-R-O-F-E-S-S-I-O-N-A-L (whatever this means ; ) 4K/60p camera at your disposal.

[Ken Ross]

Jon, I just thought he was referring to the small size of the A6500. It is a small camera. It never struck me that he was saying that in a demeaning manner.

[jonpais]

32 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

Jon, I just thought he was referring to the small size of the A6500. It is a small camera. It never struck me that he was saying that in a demeaning manner.

Maybe he doesn't want to mention the rival by name.

[Cinegain]

20 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

Jon, I just thought he was referring to the small size of the A6500. It is a small camera. It never struck me that he was saying that in a demeaning manner.

He asked if this little Sony camera shot 4K... I mean, even if you're living under a rock...

Seemed he portrays the GH5 as the end-all of all cameras and why even look at something else, definitely had his Panasonic blinders on. I mean, he's a Luminary or how you call those, but even Matt or Sean wouldn't act so defensive and dismissive of other brands/cameras. Sure, I agree, the GH5 is top notch and I didn't buy a A6300/6500, Canon with DPAF or whatever because they have their own issues, but no reason to glorify your own camera. A camera is like a human being, flaws included, but ultimately it's all about acceptance.

The whole range of GH cameras was known for iffy AF. The GH5 continues the GH legacy, the good and the bad, it's in its DNA. Not sure why suddenly it's such a big shock for people.

[kinvermark]

1 hour ago, Cinegain said:

He asked if this little Sony camera shot 4K... I mean, even if you're living under a rock...

Seemed he portrays the GH5 as the end-all of all cameras and why even look at something else, definitely had his Panasonic blinders on. I mean, he's a Luminary or how you call those, but even Matt or Sean wouldn't act so defensive and dismissive of other brands/cameras. Sure, I agree, the GH5 is top notch and I didn't buy a A6300/6500, Canon with DPAF or whatever because they have their own issues, but no reason to glorify your own camera. A camera is like a human being, flaws included, but ultimately it's all about acceptance.

The whole range of GH cameras was known for iffy AF. The GH5 continues the GH legacy, the good and the bad, it's in its DNA. Not sure why suddenly it's such a big shock for people.

For me it is not how it compares to other cameras so much as the contradictory reports saying GH5 AF "totally sucks" versus  "works very well".   Who is right?    In the words of Mark Knopfler (singing)... "two men say the're Jesus... one of them must be wrong."

 

I would like to know the TRUTH, preferably without a lot of juvenile blah, blah and posturing.

 

 

 

 

[Emanuel]

@kinvermark, do you know that one of Niels Bohr?

"The opposite of a trivial truth is false, the opposite of a great truth is also true."

:-)

It depends on settings and the patience and skills you have in order to make them work for you and under certain circumstances. No free lunch. GH5 can be worse than the most recent Sonys and Canons or that can become unnoticed by the audience.

Straight out of the box, GH5 competitors take advantage. With work and know-how, hope not.

It will vary on the shooter, set of conditions, settings, so I bet, mainly from the choices and experience made in-camera plus coupled lens, both combined. The proof is in the pudding. Meant AF (not MF).

[kinvermark]

Likely, what you say is true... the answer is "it depends."    On the subject, conditions, skill of videographer, etc.      But this implies that when reviewing complex equipment used in a specific and limited  way (the "test"),  one should not be too confident in your own results, and should certainly not use melodramatic language like "it sucks."    How can anyone take this kind of comment seriously?

Now there appear to be other individuals on youtube supporting the "it sucks" position even though they don't even own the camera and haven't done any testing.   That's really foolish.

 

[Emanuel]

12 minutes ago, kinvermark said:

Likely, what you say is true... the answer is "it depends."    On the subject, conditions, skill of videographer, etc.      But this implies that when reviewing complex equipment used in a specific and limited  way (the "test"),  one should not be too confident in your own results, and should certainly not use melodramatic language like "it sucks."    How can anyone take this kind of comment seriously?

Now there appear to be other individuals on youtube supporting the "it sucks" position even though they don't even own the camera and haven't done any testing.   That's really foolish.

 

Indeed. Never tested one. So, supporting the failure is simply childish, besides to be unprofessional, ethically improper of a full-grown adult individual if applies.

From my experience of almost 3 decades with cameras, the first 5 years aside for full manual, I'd say there are settings enough to make it suitable. We just need to find a set of sweet spots varying under distinct setups. 

[jonpais]

12 minutes ago, kinvermark said:

Likely, what you say is true... the answer is "it depends."    On the subject, conditions, skill of videographer, etc.      But this implies that when reviewing complex equipment used in a specific and limited  way (the "test"),  one should not be too confident in your own results, and should certainly not use melodramatic language like "it sucks."    How can anyone take this kind of comment seriously?

Now there appear to be other individuals on youtube supporting the "it sucks" position even though they don't even own the camera and haven't done any testing.   That's really foolish.

 

As someone commented on the JL vs. MY video, the GH5 focuses better than the a6500 at 4K 60p. ?

[Emanuel]

Yes, indeed... : D

Without mention it seems to offer better AF when recorded externally.

[webrunner5]

Well we all know it is Way to early on tests to show weather the GH5 is "normal" GH4 AF or they did make a real improvement.

[Hanriverprod]

1 minute ago, webrunner5 said:

Well we all know it is Way to early on tests to show weather the GH5 is "normal" GH4 AF or they did make a real improvement.

Well at least we know for sure they gave it a lot of settings.

[jonpais]

I criticized Joseph L's AF-C tests back in February.

https://jonpais.wordpress.com/2017/02/27/lumix-gh5-af-c-tests-by-joseph-linaschke/

[webrunner5]

18 minutes ago, Hanriverprod said:

Well at least we know for sure they gave it a lot of settings.

Yes they did, but like some Canon 1d series cameras I have had, they have TOO damn many settings!

[Emanuel]

Posted in another forum (Password: test123):

settings:

15mm f1.7

4K60p 1/125th shutter

Speed +3 Sensitivity +2

 

[Axel]

 

10 hours ago, Arikhan said:

On the other side, there are many pros nowadays, admitting, that they are never so good in focusing compared to reliable AF systems. So, if you have to consider production costs as DOP, AF is in some situations much cheaper and faster getting to good in focus shots than repeating the same scene 10 times with a dozen of assistants...

Exactly. Also:

Many seem to mix up the words professional and high end. An Alexa or a 20.000 Dollar cine lens don't support autofocus. Does the camera operator therefore have the camera always sitting on a tripod or on his shoulder? - because these were the only modes that allowed him to focus manually? 

Hardly. Take a closer look at any modern film (cinema, TV/PPP-series). If you look at them shot by shot, you'll realize that there's a big percentage of steadicam shots, for which someone else has to pull the focus.

12 hours ago, Nodnarb said:

This discussion reminds me of an article from a couple years ago titled: Camera Wars: Why Autofocus is the New Megapixel.

One has to do with the other. The higher the resolution, the smaller the pixels (particularly if the video image is downsampled from even more megapixels) and the shallower the DoF due to bigger sensors, the less acceptable is the good old hyperfocal distance, which allowed - through short focal length in combination with smaller aperture - a fixed-focus and point-and-shoot solution. With 4k viewed on 4k displays, we've all become pixel peepers. 

For a low end user (and no professional) like me this means that a lot of shots I dreamed about in the past became possible now that gimbals and good AF are available and affordable.

... and will be nothing special anymore. People will have to learn to hold off. Forbid themselves "narrative pans" (like in the opening of Rear Windows), bragging with pointless sequence shots or overuse of focus transitions (which should be really rare and well motivated). 

That said, I never was a big tripod fan. I'm glad that there are IBIS and OIS. And gimbals. And AF. And miniature field recorders. Better lowlight. Spare me a lot of expensive and heavy rig junk. 

The argument that pros don't use AF doesn't impress me. I shrug. So what?

 

[Emanuel]

Pity the reviewer didn't use the same lens setup side-by-side... In any case for those used to shoot with G85, this can give an idea on expectations to fulfill regarding the new toy:

 

[tomsemiterrific]

On 4/6/2017 at 7:11 PM, rotgg said:

I just did interview that was over 3hr long wonder how the a6500 auto focus would have fared by the end  

I've had the a6500 shut down after only a few minutes run time on a very mild day. Still, when it's not overheating and shutting down you can get some beautiful stuff out of it.

[Emanuel]

5 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

I've had the a6500 shut down after only a few minutes run time on a very mild day. Still, when it's not overheating and shutting down you can get some beautiful stuff out of it.

Funny description for the Sony toys ;-)