Panasonic GH5 - Quick Mini Review

[Oliver Daniel]

Hello. 

I'll maker this short but informative. 

Firstly, I sold my FS5 Raw setup - took a big risk, got a GH5 to replace it. The reason was mostly down to portability. 

Recently shot an entire paid music video with the GH5 and some stuff on the A6500. I'd never used the GH5 before - it practically just came out the box. Shot in Vlog L. Had an awesome experience. 

 

Main Pros

• IBIS. Much better than the A6500. Invaluable. 
• Speedbooster XL gives a very different look to typical M43. Sigma ART's + XL = win! 
• 1080p 10bit modes are fantastic. Made the A6500 in 1080p look fuzzy and blurry. 
• Body design is one of the best I've experienced. Battery grip definitely gives a steadier feel to handling and definitely gives a higher impression to the client. Big impact.
• VlogL is fairly easy to get into (coming from Slog). Colours are accurate and lovely when graded. 
• Custom white balance is very quick and easy. 
• Menu system is pretty nice, especially the My Menu bit. Way better than the A6500. 
• Small and powerful enough to put straight onto the Zhiyun Crane and Edelkrone Motion Kit. 
• Battery life is decent (but nowhere near as good as the GH3 - which was ridiculous). 
• EVF nice and large. Again much better than the A6500. 
• Full Size HDMI. Yep.

Main Cons (I'm being picky here)

• CineD skintones - finding it hard to get it where I want. Looks very odd off the bat. I need to work more on this as V-log isn't always the best profile to use. 
• Photo Style options are very lean (compared to Sony). Not a massive deal, but would be nice to have more options. 
• Autofocus is essential for my gimbal stuff. A6500 is excellent here. GH5 before V2 firmware is not. Hopefully this is reliable now. 
• Dynamic range is a bit less and steeper in the rolloff than what I'm used to. Again, need to mess round with things to get it smoother in the grade. 
• I think the record button is in the wrong place. I just use the shutter button anyway. 

 

Overall

An absolutely outstanding piece of kit. 

I've only used the camera for one shoot, but using this camera has already made a big impression and is already serving my creative choices to a greater level than the FS5 did.

I've not updated the firmware yet, but what Panasonic have give us is an incredibly valuable tool with almost very single feature you could ever ask for, or actually need.

With a great emphasis on online video distribution, and video being consumed on smart devices - if that's how you're playing it, I would say you would never need another camera for a very long time. 

If the Autofocus is reliable in V2, it would relegate my A6500 to just a carry around camera. 

Got to say, I'm incredibly pleased and looking forward to shooting more. 

 

(see below for quick VlogL grade). 

 

 

 

[jonpais]

I haven't owned it that long, but one of my biggest gripes, a carry over from the G85, is that focus peaking does not work well enough. I need to use an external monitor for manual focusing. 

[JordanWright]

1 minute ago, jonpais said:

I haven't owned it that long yet, but one my biggest gripes, a carry over from the G85, is that focus peaking does not work well enough. I need to use an external monitor for manual focusing. 

While I agree with you, its still significantly better than I Sony's I previously shot with!

[AaronChicago]

Agreed.

Just curious why you wouldn't use VLog all of the time. Handing off footage straight to a client?

[Kisaha]

@Oliver Daniel

We use 2 GH5 on a TV series right now (I do sound, but me and the DP were responsible for equipment choices) and we had the opportunity to rent or use a lot of different set ups. Finally we decided on the GH5 with the Olympus 12-100 4f, Varavon Zeus cages, and the Olympus fish eye. It is a "street" show with famous(famous here) chefs involved, so there is a lot of walking and run n gun type of shooting, so the overall size/weight ratio, the 24-200mm equivelent with just one lens, and the ok (for the type of show) 10 bit format were deciding factors. Also, instead of renting something else, the production company bought the whole setup.

A6500 is a typical Sony "jack of all trades, master of none" machine. There is almost nothing that does best (low light performance maybe, but Fuji uses the same sensor anyway) and in some very important aspects is worst in class (ergonomics, battery, thermal management, native lenses = Canon M is worst here though, etc).

I would never consider the A6500 as a real pro tool, even in weddings most of the people I know, after the enthusiasm of the beginning, are starting to stop using them (some even use GH4s speed boosted as a B cam). The 18-105 is amazing for the money though.

[mercer]

5 hours ago, jonpais said:

I haven't owned it that long, but one of my biggest gripes, a carry over from the G85, is that focus peaking does not work well enough. I need to use an external monitor for manual focusing. 

Between this comment and your decision to shoot with the Long GOP, it may make more sense for you to just record ProRes on your Video Assist. I believe the GH5 does an internal downscale of 4K to 1080p like the GH4 did. That way you can get the higher bitrate, easily editable ProRes on cheaper media?

[jonpais]

I wasted over $400 already on cards to shoot a codec I'll probably never use. Before jumping in and buying pricey v60 or v90 cards, everyone should be asking themselves if they really need it first. I can't see any difference in motion, maybe someone with better eyesight than mine can. 

[mercer]

I’m sure you can sell them on this board and recoup 3/4 of that money.

But did you test it with True 24p and not 23.976? The combination of All-I and 24p could make a discernible difference. 

@jonpais

Also MOV or MP4?

Also @jonpais since you already have the Veydras and a Voigtlander or two and the Video Assist... goddamnit... just go and buy a BMMCC and shoot some Raw video. Raw 60p is some serious video.

Sorry to the OP for the OT. 

[jonpais]

@mercer What was the topic again?  I'm just going by the side-by-side footage I've seen online. I've already said, I've probably uploaded dozens of videos shot in 23.976 as 24 and vice versa: I didn't know better at the time, and not a single person pointed it out. Some even had speaking, and changes in audio frequency are much easier to detect.

[mercer]

19 minutes ago, jonpais said:

@mercer What was the topic again?  I'm just going by the side-by-side footage I've seen online. I've already said, I've probably uploaded dozens of videos shot in 23.976 as 24 and vice versa: I didn't know better at the time, and not a single person pointed it out. Some even had speaking, and changes in audio frequency are much easier to detect.

There may not be that much of a difference and certainly if you cannot tell the difference, then why bother with the data heavy 400Mbps.

Honestly, this is the reason I got away from 4K in general. I would always transcode and downscale any 4K Footage I shot to 1080p in EditReady before I ever brought it into FCPX, so I was losing a lot of the benefits of 4K with my workflow. I didn’t want to edit with proxies as I am not that organized and my computer cannot cleanly play back 4K files.

Once I started shooting with good HD, I rarely noticed any major difference between the two.

And since I am not a good colorist, I found it a lot easier to get a “cinematic” (I know that can be a bad word around here) image with 1080p footage.

YMMV.

[Oliver Daniel]

6 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

Agreed.

Just curious why you wouldn't use VLog all of the time. Handing off footage straight to a client?

Sometimes there's very limited dynamic range to capture in a scene where Vlog would fall apart - doesn't happen often.

I see myself using Vlog about 90% of the time (I did just pluck that percentage out of thin air but it sounds right). 

I'm working on a bunch of Vlog LUTs at the moment - may release them as a pack soon. Just lots of work. 

6 hours ago, jonpais said:

I haven't owned it that long, but one of my biggest gripes, a carry over from the G85, is that focus peaking does not work well enough. I need to use an external monitor for manual focusing. 

 

I think the peaking is fine and works better than the FS5, A6500 etc. 

If the depth of field is deep, it's certainly handy setting peaking to an Fn button as those coloured dots fill the entire image!

5 hours ago, Kisaha said:

@Oliver Daniel

We use 2 GH5 on a TV series right now (I do sound, but me and the DP were responsible for equipment choices) and we had the opportunity to rent or use a lot of different set ups. Finally we decided on the GH5 with the Olympus 12-100 4f, Varavon Zeus cages, and the Olympus fish eye. It is a "street" show with famous(famous here) chefs involved, so there is a lot of walking and run n gun type of shooting, so the overall size/weight ratio, the 24-200mm equivelent with just one lens, and the ok (for the type of show) 10 bit format were deciding factors. Also, instead of renting something else, the production company bought the whole setup.

A6500 is a typical Sony "jack of all trades, master of none" machine. There is almost nothing that does best (low light performance maybe, but Fuji uses the same sensor anyway) and in some very important aspects is worst in class (ergonomics, battery, thermal management, native lenses = Canon M is worst here though, etc).

I would never consider the A6500 as a real pro tool, even in weddings most of the people I know, after the enthusiasm of the beginning, are starting to stop using them (some even use GH4s speed boosted as a B cam). The 18-105 is amazing for the money though.

 

Awesome. 

Olympus lenses I have - the 40-150mm, the 8mm fisheye and 60mm Macro. 

The 40-150mm is a stunning lens - it gets ridiculous using Ex. Tele Conv. Love this one and peaks my interest in also using a GH5 for stills. 

[Dan Sherman]

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

I wasted over $400 already on cards to shoot a codec I'll probably never use. Before jumping in and buying pricey v60 or v90 cards, everyone should be asking themselves if they really need it first. I can't see any difference in motion, maybe someone with better eyesight than mine can. 

The real benefit of the 400Mbit ALL-I over the 150Mbit Long GOP, is that it's much easier to edit, when you are editing at full resolution and not using proxy files, or trans-coding. 

[tonysss]

11 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

CineD skintones - finding it hard to get it where I want. Looks very odd off the bat. I need to work more on this as V-log isn't always the best profile to use. 

Yes, I see it anyway ,  I no longer use cineD ,

My current setting for Run and go , without others complicated adjustments , with perfect skin tone:

Profile 709L , 0,-5,-5,-2 ,  luminance level 16-235 , Master Pedestal Level +5 , White balance AWB (A5,M1)

exposure 0 ,  zebra 95 %

 

last jobs is 709L , I bought yesterday V-log ,not yet tested...

My channel VIMEO:  VIMEO , (https://vimeo.com/user9259559)

 

[tihon84]

Only one to say: now having gh5 i dont want to buy RED camera))

[Emanuel]

On 28/09/2017 at 5:27 PM, mercer said:

(...)

And since I am not a good colorist, I found it a lot easier to get a “cinematic” (I know that can be a bad word around here) image with 1080p footage.

YMMV.

Not easier not harder, it is only a matter of resolution : ) You meant sharpness as less cinematic, I guess?

Well, I believe in the bigger you can get the little, otherwise, the reverse is much difficult to reach, isn't it?

[Orangenz]

On 28/09/2017 at 10:05 PM, Oliver Daniel said:

 

Main Cons (I'm being picky here)

• CineD skintones - finding it hard to get it where I want. Looks very odd off the bat. I need to work more on this as V-log isn't always the best profile to use. 
•  

Great write up Oliver!

Have you tried the Leeming Lut One? It goes onto VLog and Cine D so you can colour match between them when you need to do slowmo. There's an update soon for it too. 

[Dan Sherman]

11 hours ago, Orangenz said:

Great write up Oliver!

Have you tried the Leeming Lut One? It goes onto VLog and Cine D so you can colour match between them when you need to do slowmo. There's an update soon for it too. 

I just want to add a slight technical note to this. It's two different luts, that are designed to yield the same end results.

[mercer]

On 9/30/2017 at 11:47 AM, Emanuel said:

Not easier not harder, it is only a matter of resolution : ) You meant sharpness as less cinematic, I guess?

I meant what I wrote, with my lack of color correcting/grading skills I find it easier to make 1080p footage look “cinematic” than it is with 4K. Perhaps it’s the sharpness, either way I find it easier for me.

On 9/30/2017 at 11:47 AM, Emanuel said:

Well, I believe in the bigger you can get the little, otherwise, the reverse is much difficult to reach, isn't it?

I suppose, but I don’t really see the necessity of 4K when 1080p is often more than enough. I guess it’s an Alexa vs Red argument... Alexa usually wins. 

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I meant what I wrote, with my lack of color correcting/grading skills I find it easier to make 1080p footage look “cinematic” than it is with 4K. Perhaps it’s the sharpness, either way I find it easier for me.

I suppose, but I don’t really see the necessity of 4K when 1080p is often more than enough. I guess it’s an Alexa vs Red argument... Alexa usually wins. 

I don't think 100,000 can ever be less than 25,000 ; ) so I can't take that as much orthodox or even valuable, I'd dare to say, I'm sorry : ) Extra resolution or 4K for the sake of it will always give you a better cinematic whatever adjective we want to. The point is 75,000 can be not necessary if you only need 25,000 for : P or the extra 75,000 might be more demanding. Reckless argument when even wedding filmmakers or consumers are adopting such standard. Not necessarily mandatory though when by then, you may need to apply something you're not willing to, as for instance, because of a different workflow of your own or sharpness per se to end in acuteness unwanted (you can add blur @post anyhow) and not in your plans or needs into a specific project or sort of work, style/aesthetics and so on.

Without mention, from larger you can always go narrower, but not the opposite, so there's nothing 1080p is able to become that 4K acquisition or 4K -> 1080p cannot.

This reminds me the peregrine idea that digital can't show grain or mimic film stock when comes acquired in bits and bytes... *cough* *cough*

E :-)