GH5S Sample Footage and Reviews

[anonim]

12 minutes ago, jonpais said:

It’s nice to get a brief reprieve from all the garbage virtuosic gimbal work, gratuitous speed ramps and drone footage that pollute the internet and that have nothing at all to do with the vocabulary of good filmmaking.

Yes, yes. Momentarily I'm Richard III and am giving everything in kingdom for the one horse - location, location (bien sûr, without budget :)

[shooter]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

Word. Some are only innocuous tests like the customary flowers, children and cats, though : )

On the hardware differences, there's nothing we can't obviously do but as already stated, nothing some other workaround gear may not solve within certain limits. For some reason we need to couple some piece of glass there to begin with ; )

Not really convinced there are substantial differences on the Dynamic Range level or even highlights rolloff. Dual ISO is there, is real and sweet, not mere marketing as I could read here by Sony clientele basis, despite that.

I believe the problem for the other fellow here or under that respective angle is not the 2500 mark but the difference (500 for the case but could be another one) the buyer doesn't feel like to afford. Not because the client can't or have no clue how to pay for it : D but certain principles still apply.

It is not a matter to discuss if a firmware will or not to overcome it. Panasonic followed Sony. Why? Is it possible to overwhelm that with the next upgrade GH6 series step? Only then? What about adjusting the price difference between both versions of the same camera model?

Well, to begin with, they are not actually the same camera, but two distinct ones. They share the same market range anyway.

Only a nonrestrictive strategy on the market segment or a new pricing policy might be the answer. However, as a few have already predicted, it is even possible their GHx series price will end higher once as you Jon have fairly pointed out now and many of us have been restless to defend here and everywhere: 2500 bucks is a no-brainer deal for what this acquisition device delivers at this level.

Last but not least, the prices are beyond the traditional 4/3" format framing because of their video abilities. The ease of cheap adapters to couple practically any single mount system also help this to happen. A certain thing is for sure though: they would have to rethink their margins if they would feel their competitors are coming tougher and closer to them. To my view, that's where they still end their decisions as far as we've seen on their GH5/GH5S dichotomy so far. Much more than large pixels size vs higher resolution sensor or lack of IBIS with ridiculous excuses or as you wish, they start or could end exactly there.

Exactly my feelings.

[jonpais]

@shooter and what feelings are those pray tell? I couldn't make head or tail of that comment myself.

[greenscreen]

Very interesting discussion. Great forum. I and my family partners we are in the middle of a single doubt. GH5S or only GH5? I see some people see GH5S like an extra expense. I have heard and read GH5 low light can be very good without difference for GH5S up to 1600 ISO. It seems the only trouble is when we go beyond 3200 ISO. We also can use fast lenses. Should we wait for the new A7S3?

[shooter]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

@shooter and what feelings are those pray tell? I couldn't make head or tail of that comment myself.

Why two cameras? In daylight the footage is the same. Only extreme low light you see any differences. In my opinion, the new low light model only came to depreciate the older GH5 version. Or because of Sony A7S. Or because people like the video of these cameras before less expensive. Or yet because of the price to pay premium membership. I can pay more 500 but... GH5 and GH5S together cost 4500. GH1/2/3 etc costed much less.

[jonpais]

Thank you guys for helping me make up my mind. I’m buying the GH5s.

[anonim]

4 hours ago, shooter said:

. In my opinion, the new low light model only came...

First usage and practicing of new sensor. Also preparing justification and buyers to 3000$/euros or more as price of next, more complete model - jump of 1000$ is harder to digest without raw or similar sensational add.

Anyway, there's no, of course, just one angle o view. As uploaded footage proved, Panasonic did marvelous job and GH5s is not at all unattainable for ready buyer of GH5 or new Fuji etc. Panasonic has to make profit for investing to even more advanced achievement - although footages as such indeed and already show fully absent limit for big-screen-reproduction capability.

@jonpais Totally nothing clever, needless to say, but - If I've invested in Veydras and mostly use Zhiyun Crane - GH5s with its iso 3200 OOC professionally usable limit is an easier choice.  (Maybe just waiting a bit for price to drop more or search for the most usable bundle offer. But, life is short and every day shorter - 100s of dollars expense are not, luckily, horror for us. Probably there's no better investment, regarding enjoy and aliveness it could bring.) Of course, if it is possible to find/approve usage for both cameras - even better.

[anonim]

Edit... maybe false or true, at any case rumor, but maybe to someone might be useful - quoted from internet

"It is now strong rumors in dealers circles that Panasonic will make significant price reduction of GH5s in March or very early April. Some talk about 40% cut, but it will be determinated by actual sales, as Panasonic needs minimal production volume to keep lines profitable and preliminary sales figure is much lower than this volume."

[webrunner5]

http://www.newsshooter.com/2018/02/22/panasonic-gh5s-good-bad-clean/

[xzoticskillz]

I couldn't find any samples or a demo of low light 240 fps footage from the Gh5s. Thus, I went out and made my own test video to see what's possible. Here it is:

 

 

[ntblowz]

6 hours ago, xzoticskillz said:

I couldn't find any samples or a demo of low light 240 fps footage from the Gh5s. Thus, I went out and made my own test video to see what's possible. Here it is:

 

 

woah! totally blow the a7SII @ 120fps away

[xzoticskillz]

Exactly, I'm actually coming straight from the A7SII too.....paired with the metabones ultra  the 240fps HFR mode looks better than 120p on the A7sII. 

[DBounce]

So I have been mucking about trying to see if I could get the GH5S to feels "Cinematic"... whatever that means. Have a looksie, and post if you feel any of it hit the mark.

 

[webrunner5]

I think the middle section I liked the best. But I don't know, hard to look "Cinematic" in 4k to me. Things look too sharp even not trying to. You using VLog or what?

[DBounce]

5 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I think the middle section I liked the best. But I don't know, hard to look "Cinematic" in 4k to me. Things look too sharp even not trying to. You using VLog or what?

Recorded in HLG.  Might try VLog-L later. Slapped a Tiffen . BPM on there to try to soften it a bit.

[webrunner5]

Are you sure you can even Get a "Cinematic" look with HLG??

[DBounce]

23 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Are you sure you can even Get a "Cinematic" look with HLG??

Idk, I would imagine so. After all, aren't all the new movies shot in HLG?

[Kisaha]

On 2/24/2018 at 6:33 AM, webrunner5 said:

http://www.newsshooter.com/2018/02/22/panasonic-gh5s-good-bad-clean/

This is a very fair and interesting review of the camera, in case someone missed it.

[DBounce]

So I shot this at 270° shutter angle. What are thoughts about this vs 180° on GH5S?

[anonim]

2 hours ago, DBounce said:

So I have been mucking about trying to see if I could get the GH5S to feels "Cinematic"... whatever that means. Have a looksie, and post if you feel any of it hit the mark.

 

I think that, before any remark, it is desirable that spectator try to precisely explain what personally implies or search-for as cinematic quality.

For me -

1) that immediately observer's reaction don't be how noticeable an image is sharply cut/define into the combination of constitution particles - i. e. that experience of wholeness is not distracted by noticing edges of minuscule parts

2) that details are present and discernible - if we willingly pay attention to them, diverting attention from undistracted impression of wholeness, as explained in 1)

3) that colors are not at all emphasized (of course not in the case of special look) in the any of ways that doesn't correspond with our natural observation of color balance - again, by "natural" i consider spontaneous work of eyes to perceive wholeness, smoothing differences in contrast between nearby areas (contrary emphatic treatment I call as unnatural usage as of subtle inner ilumination resulting in artificially "pleasant" or similar, but calling-to-itself impression). To achieve such impression, of course it is necessary to have enough dynamic range of nuances at disposal.

Etc, but not to be too long.

So, maybe my definition of cinematic differs from someone's other - but, judging by it as reference, my answer is: yes, your footage looks to me cinematic by great margin.