The simple thing the GH5 does not seem to achieve: the magic of the GH2

[mercer]

Probably not too great if he’s giving them to a bunch of needy kids...

Seriously though, Pentax primes are amazing... especially for what they go for. 

[fuzzynormal]

44 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

 

That is literally what I suggested to someone else recently!

Also if you ditch the laptop requirement but get an ex lease PC, you can slash your budget in half!

How are those Pentax primes btw?

Fine.  Simple and useful.  Any decent/old 2.8 on an M43 camera are perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned.  Really, for less than $200 you're shooing with capabilities that any filmmaker from a generational ago would have killed for.

[kidzrevil]

The hacked gh2 is what made me upgrade from my canon t3i to the panasonic gh3. Years later and I still haven’t seen an image with the color and rendering of the gh2. I think the gh2 won the zacuto shootout at the Skywalker ranch in a blind test as well. It was like its own filmstock. I wouldn’t mind picking one up that’s already hacked and slapping a speedbooster on it if its compatible.

anyway as mentioned earlier by a couple of the other posters the gh2 era was a great time for video content. It wasn’t a bunch of guys with deep pockets & no skills buying the best cams they can get their hands on in an attempt to be the next youtube sensation. It was guys looking to make films with accessible equipment. It was when filmmakers were trying to get dslr’s to become budget cinema cameras with faux LOG / flat profiles etc. DSLR filmmaking became an aesthetic of its own during this era

the newer cameras are just something cooked up from the minds of the marketing department. People mainly wanted a sharp image so they gave it to them. No more organic look from the gh2 and thats ok there are ways around that if you know what you are doing. Imo this era’s filmmaker over emphasizes tech and not the content. We forget that some great films were shot on DV cameras. I hear some guys say they cant film something because they only have an 8 bit camera. Never heard anything like that during the gh2 era we are spoiled LOL

Meanwhile the guys that dont care about tech  and shoot with 1080p cams but their skill level makes the gh5 look like a joke. They can turn the flaws of an image into an aesthetic.

[mercer]

@kidzrevil well said!

Unfortunately, consumers are impressed and motivated by bigger specs. For instance, 10bit video... although great for a lot of users who want to bend and shape their color in post, for most users, 10bit video is overkill and the benefits are minimalistic at best.

To be clear, the footage I’ve seen from members of this forum looks great but Panny is right, if you scour YouTube and Vimeo, the overwhelming majority of footage shot in 4K 10bit, should be more visually compelling. And the majority of those folks’ videos would look just as good if they shot it in 8bit.

Hell, I’ve asked almost a dozen times on the various GH5 forums about the 10bit 200mbps all-i 1080 up to 60p and all I get are crickets. To me that is the most interesting spec on the GH5.

Actually, I just found some casual 1080p footage from the GH4 that is as good as a lot of the casual GH5 videos floating around...

Now I’m sure that guy would make great GH5 videos as well, because obviously the GH5 is an amazing camera, but I can’t wait until more of it starts popping up.

For now, I’ll continue to check out old videos from forgotten cameras.

[dbp]

The GH2 holds up incredibly well considering it was released, what, 8 years ago now? I shoot with the GH2 and GH4 all the time. I pretty much prefer the GH4 100% of the time, but the difference  isn't massive. I can't imagine that the GH5 isn't better in every way but I guess the question is, who cares?

I know it's a tired old argument at this point, but talent and creative choices matter way, way more than gear. Most of the content out there, the cameras used are overkill and a GH2 would service them just find.

Take a professional hollywood level set, turn on a GH2 and I think people would be utterly shocked with the result. Because ALL OF THAT OTHER STUFF is what actually matters. 

 

[kidzrevil]

@dbp @mercer totally agree ! I think we are hitting another turning point in dslr filmmaking. I feel like after the 10bit / HDR honeymoon period people will realize its not the specs that matter. There are unquantifiable characteristics to cameras like gh2 that provide images with FEELING. Im not sold on what I see a lot on youtube produce with the gh5 and the ebay resale listings seem to be in direct correlation with that. 10 bit isn’t quite the insta-Spielberg effect people have grown to expect from the one click awesome Film look LUT era.

 

sidenote I really want a hacked gh2. 

[dbp]

33 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

@dbp @mercer totally agree ! I think we are hitting another turning point in dslr filmmaking. I feel like after the 10bit / HDR honeymoon period people will realize its not the specs that matter. There are unquantifiable characteristics to cameras like gh2 that provide images with FEELING. Im not sold on what I see a lot on youtube produce with the gh5 and the ebay resale listings seem to be in direct correlation with that. 10 bit isn’t quite the insta-Spielberg effect people have grown to expect from the one click awesome Film look LUT era.

 

sidenote I really want a hacked gh2. 

I agree with you. But I feel like people have been saying that for so long. "after the *insert new spec* honeymoon period" 

But people will always want more.

And nothing wrong with improving tech, but dimished returns absolutely kicked in around the GH2. The GH2, compared to, say, the DVX100.... is a MUCH bigger improvement than the Alexa is compared to the GH2. Or anything compared to anything from this point going forward. 

[Vesku]

GH2 has poor dyn range, much noise, ugly greenish color science, aliasing and unreliable hacks. The only good thing is the wider sensor. It was very good in 2012 but not today.

[Cinegain]

Yeah, I'm attracted to its simplicity of operating, but I have to agree the actual performance wasn't all that great. But then again, Olympus cams now include a video feature called 'Old film effect' to dirty up your footage, because it's the flaws that ultimately gives it some character. Unfortunately for Olympus, that's a thing you can't really go and fake. Part of flaws and personality is that it's authentic. Maybe that's the thing about GH2 footage. Sort how CCD gives you its own vibe as well. Bit of a roughed up nose from fighting VS cosmetic rhinoplasty (intent as well)... or aged wine versus grapejuice.

[IronFilm]

23 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Fine.  Simple and useful.  Any decent/old 2.8 on an M43 camera are perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned.  Really, for less than $200 you're shooing with capabilities that any filmmaker from a generational ago would have killed for.

Yeah, even with the old ancient Panasonic GH1 sensor and "slow" f2.8 primes, you can easily expose well with that so long as you work with it (not against!). 

I'd probably throw in just one 35mm f1.7 C mount lens (which are CHEAP! Was one of my first lenses for my GH1) into that lens kit, just to help out in a tricky spot when you really need that extra stop or more of light. 

 

12 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

The hacked gh2 is what made me upgrade from my canon t3i to the panasonic gh3. Years later and I still haven’t seen an image with the color and rendering of the gh2. I think the gh2 won the zacuto shootout at the Skywalker ranch in a blind test as well. It was like its own filmstock. I wouldn’t mind picking one up that’s already hacked and slapping a speedbooster on it if its compatible.

Important point to remember is the GH2 took a lot more time to light with, than say an Arri Alexa does. 

Thus the Arri Alexa "saves money"!

(however I half wonder... if taking that extra time which the GH2 needed, is what helped make the image "better"? Maybe that is what we should all just do instead, take the time to slow down and really think about what we're shooting)

 

6 hours ago, dbp said:

Take a professional hollywood level set, turn on a GH2 and I think people would be utterly shocked with the result. Because ALL OF THAT OTHER STUFF is what actually matters. 

 

Yes. Like sound! ;-)
(ok ok, and lighting! And make up! Oh and I guess the actors and story matter too :-P )

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Im not sold on what I see a lot on youtube produce with the gh5 and the ebay resale listings seem to be in direct correlation with that.

Quick skim over sold listings on eBay:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_sop=15&LH_ItemCondition=1500|2000|3000&_nkw=panasonic gh5&LH_PrefLoc=2&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

Seems anything notably under $1.5K is quite rare. 

Which doesn't seem unreasonable at all for the GH5! Considering it is RRP, and that is has been out for nearly a year. Quite similar to other camera secondhand pricing. 

NIkon D500 had the same RRP, also announced in 2016 (but at the start of the year), yet is only a bit cheaper than a GH5 (even though DSLRs tend to hold their prices a little better than mirrorless secondhand):

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_sop=15&LH_ItemCondition=1500|2000|3000&_nkw=Nikon D500&LH_PrefLoc=2&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, dbp said:

I agree with you. But I feel like people have been saying that for so long. "after the *insert new spec* honeymoon period" 

But people will always want more.

And nothing wrong with improving tech, but dimished returns absolutely kicked in around the GH2. The GH2, compared to, say, the DVX100.... is a MUCH bigger improvement than the Alexa is compared to the GH2. Or anything compared to anything from this point going forward. 

 

Agreed, the moment we got the ability to have interchangeable lenses easily/cheaply then the whole game changed. 

And that happened with the Panasonic GH1/GH2 generation. 

[jonpais]

All of this is just misplaced nostalgia. I could argue that there were more legendary conductors in the recording studio in the heyday of the gramophone than nowadays, but I wouldn't prefer Edison's cylinders to today's CD or MP3 players. And using recording methods in vogue in the early 1900s isn't going to yield superior results to those obtained employing modern technology. In other words, you can go ahead and purchase a GH2, but your films won't be any better - any more than your films will suddenly be Oscar-worthy by switching over to a GH5 from a GH4.

Whether we're talking image quality or convenience, there is little to no reason to prefer the GH2 over the GH5 or, if cost is a factor, even the G85 or GX85 for that matter. The GH3 was already a marked improvement in just about every category when compared to the GH2 except for physical size. No reason to stop there either - practically any other camera released last year by Sony, Fuji, Olympus, or whomever would be a better investment than the GH2. In fact, it was Andrew Reid's review that convinced me to purchase a GH3 over the GH2 when I moved on from a camcorder to mirrorless. A very incomplete list of the advantages of the GH5 over the GH2 (and this does not even include dramatically improved color science, higher bit rates and on and on): the GH5 has focus peaking (oh, how I regretted the lack of focus peaking on my GH3!) a tilt-swivel screen, IBIS (impossible to shoot my GH3 handheld without some sort of rig; I can only imagine the same goes for the GH2), 4K, touchscreen (much easier to navigate menus, tap to focus), built-in wifi, better color depth, higher effective ISO, greater dynamic range, build quality, longer battery life, external mic jack, higher res screen, no AA filter, dual SD card slots, full sized HDMI, and on and on. 

If people aren't creating YT masterpieces with the GH5, shame on them! Perhaps @PannySVHS is right - maybe there were more cool short films being made in 2011, 2012 than today - I've got no way of verifying that - but as has already been stated, if it is true, then there very well may have been historical reasons for it. To desire a GH2 today because rad films were made with it nearly a decade ago is like wanting a word processor instead of a computer (apologies for the poor analogy!)

I'm not sure where all this blind hatred for the GH5 is coming from (to be clear, I'm not accusing PannySVHS of being a hater), especially from those who've never even handled one - I usually refrain from meddling in Blackmagic, Canon, Sony or Olympus forums - for the simple reason that I've never shot with them! For sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are equally valid. And when I say valid, I mean having the facts to back up those opinions. One type of opinion I dismiss outright is the one that goes Panasonic will never be any good unless they employ a full frame sensor (fwiw, the 4/3" sensor is supposed to be ideal for anamorphic afaik). As for the rest, no body of work to show, little credibility, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

A very incomplete list of the advantages of the GH5 over the GH2 (and this does not even include dramatically improved color science, higher bit rates and on and on): the GH5 has focus peaking (oh, how I regretted the lack of focus peaking on my GH3!) a tilt-swivel screen, IBIS (impossible to shoot my GH3 handheld without some sort of rig; I can only imagine the same goes for the GH2), 4K, touchscreen (much easier to navigate menus, tap to focus), built-in wifi, better color depth, higher effective ISO, greater dynamic range, build quality, longer battery life, external mic jack, higher res screen, no AA filter, dual SD card slots, full sized HDMI, and on and on. 

Waveforms is a big one you missed out! Very jealous about that feature that I don't have it. A first in any mirrorless/DSLR camera!

[mercer]

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

All of this is just misplaced nostalgia. I could argue that there were more legendary conductors in the recording studio in the heyday of the gramophone than nowadays, but I wouldn't prefer Edison's cylinders to today's CD or MP3 players. And using recording methods in vogue in the early 1900s isn't going to yield superior results to those obtained employing modern technology. In other words, you can go ahead and purchase a GH2, but your films won't be any better - any more than your films will suddenly be Oscar-worthy by switching over to a GH5 from a GH4.

Whether we're talking image quality or convenience, there is little to no reason to prefer the GH2 over the GH5 or, if cost is a factor, even the G85 or GX85 for that matter. The GH3 was already a marked improvement in just about every category when compared to the GH2 except for physical size. No reason to stop there either - practically any other camera released last year by Sony, Fuji, Olympus, or whomever would be a better investment than the GH2. In fact, it was Andrew Reid's review that convinced me to purchase a GH3 over the GH2 when I moved on from a camcorder to mirrorless. A very incomplete list of the advantages of the GH5 over the GH2 (and this does not even include dramatically improved color science, higher bit rates and on and on): the GH5 has focus peaking (oh, how I regretted the lack of focus peaking on my GH3!) a tilt-swivel screen, IBIS (impossible to shoot my GH3 handheld without some sort of rig; I can only imagine the same goes for the GH2), 4K, touchscreen (much easier to navigate menus, tap to focus), built-in wifi, better color depth, higher effective ISO, greater dynamic range, build quality, longer battery life, external mic jack, higher res screen, no AA filter, dual SD card slots, full sized HDMI, and on and on. 

If people aren't creating YT masterpieces with the GH5, shame on them! Perhaps @PannySVHS is right - maybe there were more cool short films being made in 2011, 2012 than today - I've got no way of verifying that - but as has already been stated, if it is true, then there very well may have been historical reasons for it. To desire a GH2 today because rad films were made with it nearly a decade ago is like wanting a word processor instead of a computer (apologies for the poor analogy!)

I'm not sure where all this blind hatred for the GH5 is coming from (to be clear, I'm not accusing PannySVHS of being a hater), especially from those who've never even handled one - I usually refrain from meddling in Blackmagic, Canon, Sony or Olympus forums - for the simple reason that I've never shot with them! For sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are equally valid. And when I say valid, I mean having the facts to back up those opinions. One type of opinion I dismiss outright is the one that goes Panasonic will never be any good unless they employ a full frame sensor (fwiw, the 4/3" sensor is supposed to be ideal for anamorphic afaik). As for the rest, no body of work to show, little credibility, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Honestly Jon, I think this reply is the very reason why this discussion began. You’ve very astutely listed all of the reasons why the GH5 is a better camera than the GH2... umm... every single person who has commented has agreed with you. But if it is that much better (which it is) then why isn’t the work floating around Vimeo and YouTube that much better? I think the discussion was formed because there is some truth that creativity can be born from limitations. The GH2 is a legendary camera with limitations, those limitations forced people to be creative.

And trust me full frame is amazing.

[jonpais]

@mercer But not every single person here does agree....

Anyhow, if you’ve got time, take any of the GH2 videos that’ve  been posted here - could you cite a few of the limitations that were imposed on the filmmaker by the camera, how they overcame them, and how their solution resulted in a great video? 

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, mercer said:

But if it is that much better (which it is) then why isn’t the work floating around Vimeo and YouTube that much better? I think the discussion was formed because there is some truth that creativity can be born from limitations. The GH2 is a legendary camera with limitations, those limitations forced people to be creative.

I disagree somewhat with your conclusion. 

The reason is simple: because PEOPLE matter more than the camera. 

So what are those PEOPLE doing now?

Many of them have moved on/up to other cameras. (many likely still have a GH5, but it is their B or C Cam, thus when they produce a highly polished piece they're not going to shout at from the roof tops that "THIS WAS SHOT ON A GH5!!!!111")

Back when the GH2/GH1 came out, the other strong options were very thin on the ground. Such as a Sony F3 / FS100 / FS700, Canon C300, or Panasonic AF100, or RED ONE

So you have many people choosing the GH2/GH1, but today they have an explosion of other options to consider. With the entire Blackmagic Design range, plus FS5/FS7, C100/C200/C300/C500, Panasonic EVA1, JVC LS300, and Kinefinity, etc etc etc... plus those I mentioned beforehand (F3/FS700/FS100/R1/C300, which have become much more affordable!).

So the people who choose a GH5 as their #1 A Cam are largely young inexperienced people, or some amateur filmmakers on a very tight budget, which is much smaller pool of talent to pick people from.

 

 

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Anyhow, if you’ve got time, take any of the GH2 videos that’ve  been posted here - could you cite a few of the limitations that were imposed on the filmmaker by the camera, how they overcame them, and how their solution resulted in a great video? 

I did come up with the theory that perhaps the extra time which the GH2 forced them to do with lighting is why on the Zacuto  Shootout many people thought it looked "better", because literally greater care had to be taken care with shooting with it. 

But I'm skeptical as to what degree this really is a factor in your typical quality vimeo video with a GH2 (or even if it is a factor at all of note). 

[jonpais]

@IronFilm I like your conclusion best.

[IronFilm]

Which part, or both? 

That the PEOPLE are what really matter, or that the forced slowing down to take greater care with lighting with the GH2 is what makes it look "better"? (although I'm skeptical on the second point, just a theory!)

[jonpais]

6 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Which part, or both? 

Part I