Gh5 or 5d mk iv?

[Dunjoye]

12 minutes ago, mercer said:

Obviously I am referring to every single human being and extraterrestrial life force in the entire multiverse that purchased the GH5... what else would I mean?

Thanks though, I'll remember hyperbole is frowned upon on this forum.

??

I agree with your initial point. I think the canon REC709. vibrant rich colour look is often tried to be re produced wiith Luts but its never close on the DSLR range of cams. 

[Thpriest]

I have the Canon C100 mk1. It's a brilliant camera with a rubbish EVF and a poor LCD. It just produces great images and is quite forgiving. I am considering a GH5 for run and gun shooting, docs and weddings etc. Sometimes the C100 is just too heavy to lug around all day with a couple of lenses and a monopod. It's still great for most of my corporate work but I am really considering a GH5 lightweight kit, camera 3 lenses and freedom.....still a lot of money though

[mercer]

1 hour ago, Dunjoye said:

I agree with your initial point. I think the canon REC709. vibrant rich colour look is often tried to be re produced wiith Luts but its never close on the DSLR range of cams. 

I almost preordered the GH5, but then @webrunner5 posted a link to an article that did a breakdown of the cameras used at this year's Sundance film festival. And you know what, the overwhelming majority was Canon... everything back to the 5D2. Within the same hour I happened upon a 5D3 ML Raw video and to this day I haven't seen one video from the GH5 that looked even remotely as detailed or cinematic. 

Since getting my 5D3, I have been more productive than I've been in the past two years.

Meanwhile, I have also wanted a camera that has a little less workflow needed... even though 5D3 really isn't that big of a deal. So I recently purchased an FZ2500 for a very specific project I'm working on this summer. Yesterday, I messed around with it for a while and although it's a fun camera with insanely cool features, for a point & shoot, the color just doesn't look right, and more work is needed to make it look good, for me anyway. But it's still perfect for this project, so I will end up keeping it, but I think once I am done with that specific project, I am going to sell it and just get another Canon for smaller, quicker projects. 

Anyway, my point is that a lot of people complain about Canon and rightfully so, they deserve a kick in the ass for dragging their feet, but in the end, even their oldest of cameras still look pretty good when shot and handled correctly. 

Their newer cameras, even at 1080p, look plenty good enough to my eyes and the tiny screens my work will be seen on, so I may just forego 4K and go back to 1080p. Hell, there are even a few M5 videos popping up online that don't look horrible. So unless the 6D2 comes out with great features at a fair price, I may be going the M5/M6 or 80D route for my smaller projects. 

Now I'm not saying other people on this forum shouldn't get a GH5. It's an AMAZING camera with plenty of examples of great work floating around the interwebs, but you will not get Canon color straight out of the box and you will not get comparable AF. So if those two features are important to people they should be told there are other options. And even though Canon drags their feet with features, their cameras still produce beautiful images and this year's Sundance film festival proves that.

Now to be clear, I am not advocating that everybody should go out and buy a 5D3 for ML Raw, all I am saying is that I needed to realize who my audience is and what my skill set is and for me Canon, or maybe Nikon, is the better path. If I didn't have the money for a 5D3, I'd shoot with an 80D and still be happy. If I wanted more features, with more lens options, I'd get an EOS-M5 or EOS-M6.

YMMV.

DISCLAIMER: I don't know ? and people should do their own research. I am merely sharing my opinion based on my experiences. I also reserve the right to change said opinion in the next sentence...

Wait for it...

The GH5 is the best camera, with the best AF and color. 

?

 

[Leica50mm]

I shot this hand held with autofocus  an 85 1.4 wide open 1DXmkii at 120 fps while doing a still shoot . The 120 fps is a little soft but useable. Still needs to be color corrected between shots

 

[mercer]

12 minutes ago, Leica50mm said:

I shot this hand held with autofocus  an 85 1.4 wide open 1DXmkii at 120 fps while doing a still shoot . The 120 fps is a little soft but useable. Still needs to be color corrected between shots

 

Followed. Beautiful work. Now unless that guy is white, then great skin tones. Lol. But seriously, one aspect that doesn't get mentioned when speaking skin tones, is skin textures and I have been noticing with a lot of Canon videos, is that skin texture looks more real and 3-dimensional than with other cameras. 

Does the 1DX2 shoot 120fps at 1080p or 720p?

[Rinad Amir]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I almost preordered the GH5, but then @webrunner5 posted a link to an article that did a breakdown of the cameras used at this year's Sundance film festival. And you know what, the overwhelming majority was Canon... everything back to the 5D2. Within the same hour I happened upon a 5D3 ML Raw video and to this day I haven't seen one video from the GH5 that looked even remotely as detailed or cinematic. 

Since getting my 5D3, I have been more productive than I've been in the past two years.

Meanwhile, I have also wanted a camera that has a little less workflow needed... even though 5D3 really isn't that big of a deal. So I recently purchased an FZ2500 for a very specific project I'm working on this summer. Yesterday, I messed around with it for a while and although it's a fun camera with insanely cool features, for a point & shoot, the color just doesn't look right, and more work is needed to make it look good, for me anyway. But it's still perfect for this project, so I will end up keeping it, but I think once I am done with that specific project, I am going to sell it and just get another Canon for smaller, quicker projects. 

Anyway, my point is that a lot of people complain about Canon and rightfully so, they deserve a kick in the ass for dragging their feet, but in the end, even their oldest of cameras still look pretty good when shot and handled correctly. 

Their newer cameras, even at 1080p, look plenty good enough to my eyes and the tiny screens my work will be seen on, so I may just forego 4K and go back to 1080p. Hell, there are even a few M5 videos popping up online that don't look horrible. So unless the 6D2 comes out with great features at a fair price, I may be going the M5/M6 or 80D route for my smaller projects. 

Now I'm not saying other people on this forum shouldn't get a GH5. It's an AMAZING camera with plenty of examples of great work floating around the interwebs, but you will not get Canon color straight out of the box and you will not get comparable AF. So if those two features are important to people they should be told there are other options. And even though Canon drags their feet with features, their cameras still produce beautiful images and this year's Sundance film festival proves that.

Now to be clear, I am not advocating that everybody should go out and buy a 5D3 for ML Raw, all I am saying is that I needed to realize who my audience is and what my skill set is and for me Canon, or maybe Nikon, is the better path. If I didn't have the money for a 5D3, I'd shoot with an 80D and still be happy. If I wanted more features, with more lens options, I'd get an EOS-M5 or EOS-M6.

YMMV.

DISCLAIMER: I don't know ? and people should do their own research. I am merely sharing my opinion based on my experiences. I also reserve the right to change said opinion in the next sentence...

Wait for it...

The GH5 is the best camera, with the best AF and color. 

?

 

Now just to be clear i love Canon i had two of them 70D & 80D but lack of 4k and IBis slomo etc just dint please me as for GH5 footage there is pleanty online that was shot profesionaly here is few 

In right hands you can achive art with this monster and hey if your happy with ML workflow than good for you , as for us we like simple shoot transfer edit 

[Fritz Pierre]

2 hours ago, mercer said:

Obviously I am referring to every single human being and extraterrestrial life force in the entire multiverse that purchased the GH5... what else would I mean?

Thanks though, I'll remember hyperbole is frowned upon on this forum.

??

Did my frown really shine through as I was tapping out that line??...I thought I made it quite obvious that I actually enjoy these discussions...anyway....more of a smile than a frown...and to be very literal here, no condescension intended...

[Ken Ross]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I almost preordered the GH5, but then @webrunner5 posted a link to an article that did a breakdown of the cameras used at this year's Sundance film festival. And you know what, the overwhelming majority was Canon... everything back to the 5D2. Within the same hour I happened upon a 5D3 ML Raw video and to this day I haven't seen one video from the GH5 that looked even remotely as detailed or cinematic. 

Since getting my 5D3, I have been more productive than I've been in the past two years.

Meanwhile, I have also wanted a camera that has a little less workflow needed... even though 5D3 really isn't that big of a deal. So I recently purchased an FZ2500 for a very specific project I'm working on this summer. Yesterday, I messed around with it for a while and although it's a fun camera with insanely cool features, for a point & shoot, the color just doesn't look right, and more work is needed to make it look good, for me anyway. But it's still perfect for this project, so I will end up keeping it, but I think once I am done with that specific project, I am going to sell it and just get another Canon for smaller, quicker projects. 

Anyway, my point is that a lot of people complain about Canon and rightfully so, they deserve a kick in the ass for dragging their feet, but in the end, even their oldest of cameras still look pretty good when shot and handled correctly. 

Their newer cameras, even at 1080p, look plenty good enough to my eyes and the tiny screens my work will be seen on, so I may just forego 4K and go back to 1080p. Hell, there are even a few M5 videos popping up online that don't look horrible. So unless the 6D2 comes out with great features at a fair price, I may be going the M5/M6 or 80D route for my smaller projects. 

Now I'm not saying other people on this forum shouldn't get a GH5. It's an AMAZING camera with plenty of examples of great work floating around the interwebs, but you will not get Canon color straight out of the box and you will not get comparable AF. So if those two features are important to people they should be told there are other options. And even though Canon drags their feet with features, their cameras still produce beautiful images and this year's Sundance film festival proves that.

Now to be clear, I am not advocating that everybody should go out and buy a 5D3 for ML Raw, all I am saying is that I needed to realize who my audience is and what my skill set is and for me Canon, or maybe Nikon, is the better path. If I didn't have the money for a 5D3, I'd shoot with an 80D and still be happy. If I wanted more features, with more lens options, I'd get an EOS-M5 or EOS-M6.

YMMV.

DISCLAIMER: I don't know ? and people should do their own research. I am merely sharing my opinion based on my experiences. I also reserve the right to change said opinion in the next sentence...

Wait for it...

The GH5 is the best camera, with the best AF and color. 

?

 

Hmm, the 5D3 is more detailed than the GH5? I'm having trouble with that, particularly when comparing the 4K output of the GH5 to the HD output (no 4K on the 5D3). Doing that comparison, the GH5 blows the Canon away in detail. I'm not saying the Canon isn't a great camera, but for anyone shooting video, I can't see spending the money on a camera that can't do 4K. Not in today's world and especially considering how good HD looks when it's downscaled from 4K. Then there's IBIS.

The footage out of the GH5 looks so much better to me. That's MO. 

[Dave Maze]

12 hours ago, omar said:

The first camera out of college I bought was the canon 5d mk ii and it was my work horse. And what's crazy is that the image still holds up today. Great and amazing camera. 

Also I was actually considering the 1dc over the 5d iv but the DPAF calls out to me lol. How do you like your 1dc and if you could would u trade it for a 5 d iv? 

So true Mercer. I totally agree. I actually owned an A7s and, while it was a great camera, the color just wasn't doing it for me. I went through several cameras after that trying to figure out what was pleasing to me. I ended up shooting with an old 60d and fell back in love with canon for the easy menus and the wonderful colors. I could effortlessly use the camera and get a great image without so much work(wow I sound lazy lol).

Also, I actually owned an UM4.6k and returned it for a c100 mki. Canons DPAF, low light capabilities, color, ease of use, and reliability all made my decision to come back to canon so easy. And I didn't need 4K so yea. 

I guess my answer is becoming more clear guys! Canon, while stubborn and old fashioned, still tickles my fancy! lol I still will play around with my friends GH5 this weekend to see if I like it.

I literally have the ability to sell my 1DC and accessories and buy a 5D IV today. I would not do it. The 1DC has a mojo to it that is sorta indescribable. A 24-105 on it looks amazing even at F4 because of the full frameish 4k. 

One thing people fail to mention is the lack of cut off you get with the 1DC AND the really sharp and really high quality Super35 mode. I've shot super35 mode for times when 4k isn't needed and it holds up better than our C100 because of the better sensor. 

You can buy them at a steal today on the used market. 

I always use a monitor or evf tho and that kinda sucks but it's worth the trade off. 

I basically pretend that the 1DC is like an Arri Alexa Mini or RED camera and it suits my needs well. No AF for video but amazing 4k. 

[Dunjoye]

28 minutes ago, DaveAltizer said:

I literally have the ability to sell my 1DC and accessories and buy a 5D IV today. I would not do it. The 1DC has a mojo to it that is sorta indescribable. A 24-105 on it looks amazing even at F4 because of the full frameish 4k. 

One thing people fail to mention is the lack of cut off you get with the 1DC AND the really sharp and really high quality Super35 mode. I've shot super35 mode for times when 4k isn't needed and it holds up better than our C100 because of the better sensor. 

You can buy them at a steal today on the used market. 

I always use a monitor or evf tho and that kinda sucks but it's worth the trade off. 

I basically pretend that the 1DC is like an Arri Alexa Mini or RED camera and it suits my needs well. No AF for video but amazing 4k. 

Love the 1dc!

posted this before. I shot this on it. Hardly did much in post 

 

People complain about mjpeg. But its Robust when converted to Pro res HQ. 

 

These are some Screen grabs from a Drama I am working on. Shot on the 1dc

[gt3rs]

The AF on the 1Dx II is really good, this is a test video for a project I will do for in August... don't look at the exposure issues because it was a 1h test mostly to see how to combine a DJI P4p and the 1Dx II. There are some scenes at speed on the skates filmed at 24 at 1.4 on the Ronin M using AF and it keeps up quite well... Filmed with both cameras at 4k but there are quite a bit of moments that I'm digitally zooming at 2x.

 

 

2 hours ago, mercer said:

 

Does the 1DX2 shoot 120fps at 1080p or 720p?

120 is at 1080p but is a bit on the soft side so probably is around 720p real resolution... comparing 4k 60fps to 1080p 120fps is really day and night but for short scenes I tend to use it quite a bit when I know that 60fps would not be enough... 

[Dunjoye]

6 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

The AF on the 1Dx II is really good, this is a test video for a project I will do for in August... don't look at the exposure issues because it was a 1h test mostly to see how to combine a DJI P4p and the 1Dx II. There are some scenes at speed on the skates filmed at 24 at 1.4 on the Ronin M using AF and it keeps up quite well... Filmed with both cameras at 4k but there are quite a bit of moments that I'm digitally zooming at 2x.

 

 

love it .... That looks good 

 

 

[mercer]

2 hours ago, Ken Ross said:

Hmm, the 5D3 is more detailed than the GH5? I'm having trouble with that, particularly when comparing the 4K output of the GH5 to the HD output (no 4K on the 5D3). Doing that comparison, the GH5 blows the Canon away in detail. I'm not saying the Canon isn't a great camera, but for anyone shooting video, I can't see spending the money on a camera that can't do 4K. Not in today's world and especially considering how good HD looks when it's downscaled from 4K. Then there's IBIS.

The footage out of the GH5 looks so much better to me. That's MO. 

I was speaking specifically ML Raw on the 5D3. But hey whatever you like you like. That's why they make vanilla and chocolate. 

[BTM_Pix]

6 hours ago, mercer said:

So I recently purchased an FZ2500 for a very specific project I'm working on this summer. Yesterday, I messed around with it for a while and although it's a fun camera with insanely cool features, for a point & shoot, the color just doesn't look right, and more work is needed to make it look good, for me anyway. But it's still perfect for this project, so I will end up keeping it, but I think once I am done with that specific project, I am going to sell it and just get another Canon for smaller, quicker projects. 

 

Its odd how Canon don't have anything in that area and have just let Panasonic and Sony have a clear run with the FZ1000/2500 and the RX10.

The XC10 had the requisite spec for them to spin it into a consumer/prosumer rival to them and potentially dominated.

[mercer]

7 hours ago, Rinad Amir said:

Now just to be clear i love Canon i had two of them 70D & 80D but lack of 4k and IBis slomo etc just dint please me as for GH5 footage there is pleanty online that was shot profesionaly here is few 

In right hands you can achive art with this monster and hey if your happy with ML workflow than good for you , as for us we like simple shoot transfer edit 

Oh yeah, great camera that a lot of great videos will be shot with. Of course, I can argue that the maker of those videos will make great "art" no matter what camera they use. For the beginner or intermediate user... the GH5 won't be as forgiving. Let me ask you though, if Canon 5D Mark IV had IBIS and 4K slow motion, would you still want a GH5? 

Also, I wasn't suggesting people buy a 5D3 and shoot Raw. I was just explaining my experience and why I went with a Canon. This post is about a choice between the GH5 and the 5D4. As is, from what I've seen, I'd choose the Canon... just my opinion. 

[mercer]

6 hours ago, Dunjoye said:

Love the 1dc!

posted this before. I shot this on it. Hardly did much in post 

 

People complain about mjpeg. But its Robust when converted to Pro res HQ. 

 

These are some Screen grabs from a Drama I am working on. Shot on the 1dc

Really beautiful work!!! There has been so many complaints about the high bitrate mjpeg but nobody says a word when Panasonic plans on releasing a high bitrate codec... they get applauded for it. Don't get me wrong I am glad people are happy with their GH5s and I love that a company released a camera with so many features at such a bargain price... competition is good!!! Either way, great work. Post back when your film is done. I'd love to see it!!!

[omar]

Thanks for all the comments guys. U guys rock! 

The gh5 looks great but it still looks videoy. Canons look still has an edge IMO. It just looks more organic and filmic. As soon as I hit play on these gh5 videos I immediately can see that it's a gh5 video. Dont get me wrong the image is not bad, it's just not filmic. There are times when I've seen some 5d3 raw clips and for a moment I can't tell whether it's film or video or a red or Alexa. Now I'm not saying that 5d3 ML raw is on the same level but I'm saying that some canon cameras could blend in way easier with the higher end cameras IMO. This is why top DPs in Hollywood, like Shane hurlbut, always praise canon above Sony or Panasonic. It just has that look that goes above Panasonic and Sony. 

People may love that gh5 video look but I honestly love the filmic look and I take that above any feature any day. Plus I hardly ever shoot slow mo so all these specs are good but not needed for me. The canon image is still better even though they are behind the times lol

[IronFilm]

It is a dangerous loop to argue that because Canon cameras were used in Sundance thus Canon is a good choice.

 

I bet many times in those instances a Canon was not chosen for technical reasons (or only weak reasons), but just simply because Canon is the common/"standard" choice they've seen many people go with.

 

Thus it is a self reinforcing loop you're buying into here, that feeds and allows Canon to cruise along doing nothing much.

[tweak]

People need to stop saying MLraw workflow "isn't simple"... it's as simple as any other camera I use and it edits on my computer better than h.264. Only thing I think sucks about MLraw is the fact you don't get previews playing back in real time and with sound in camera. That's the only thing that really sucks for me but it isn't a deal breaker imo.

Here's a quick video we just did with GH4, GH5, Gopro, MLraw. (MLraw was normalised to rec709 to better match other footage). Almost wouldn't matter what we shot it on, only Gopro footage stands out to me a bit. Password: 123
 

 

Not sure if I would buy a 5DIV right now unless I wanted the crazy autofocus or good stills, but I think it would still be a nice camera to have if I could afford one. GH5 is a more versatile production tool for video though I think.

[mercer]

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

It is a dangerous loop to argue that because Canon cameras were used in Sundance thus Canon is a good choice.

 

I bet many times in those instances a Canon was not chosen for technical reasons (or only weak reasons), but just simply because Canon is the common/"standard" choice they've seen many people go with.

 

Thus it is a self reinforcing loop you're buying into here, that feeds and allows Canon to cruise along doing nothing much.

I disagree. If your intent is to make a narrative film or documentary, I would say the cameras used to shoot the films at Sundance is a great barometer. Now it doesn't mean the films are any better because of it, but it does indicate that the Canon image is still appreciated amongst the upper echelon of the Indie film scene. Or at the very least, it's not a distraction.

This post is about choosing between the GH5 and the 5D4. Omar is obviously impressed by the Canon image, he has stated it multiple times. I was merely expressing one of the reasons why I decided to go back to Canon and why I believe the 5D4 may be the better choice.

With the imminent C-Log update coming out in the near future, I would say the feature gap is even closer now. And in some ways... crop factor, color, AF, FF stills... I could contend the 5D4 is the better choice. You could contend differently and you would probably be right also.