Highlight Roll-Off: GH5, GH5s, A7III and X-H1 and ???

[webrunner5]

Are you shooting 4k material??  And the Canon C200 sounds like a bad way for you to go Codec wise. The normal codec is not broadcast ready, and the Raw is a total hog data wise. For what you shoot seems like neither way would work out. God only know what the middle Codec will be. Probably 8 bit, and I would hope at least 50mbps.

The EVA1 would be a better bet. How about a used Sony FS5, or FS7? And one that has not been mentioned is the Sony A9. Now that is a hell of a camera. But I think the DR on it is not as high as say a A7r mk III?

 

[jonpais]

Is this a hobby? A profession? Why must you shoot in harsh lighting anyway? Just curious...

[ajay]

21 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Is this a hobby? A profession? Why must you shoot in harsh lighting anyway? Just curious.

It's a combination. Most of my wildlife footage is a hobby and occasionally gets used in documentaries. I also do promotional stuff and that's indoors most of the time and I don't worry as much about DR for that.

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Are you shooting 4k material??  And the Canon C200 sounds like a bad way for you to go Codec wise. The normal codec is not broadcast ready, and the Raw is a total hog data wise. For what you shoot seems like neither way would work out. God only know what the middle Codec will be. Probably 8 bit, and I would hope at least 50mbps.

The EVA1 would be a better bet. How about a used Sony FS5, or FS7?

I shoot in 4k but most ends up as HD. Yea, I know the C200's goofyness with their codecs...frustrating. I did try out an FS7 once with some of my longer lenses and it was just too BIG. I thought about the FS5 but never tried one out. Maybe I should? I wonder if that camera will be replaced soon? Seems long in the tooth.

 

[webrunner5]

15 minutes ago, ajay said:

 I thought about the FS5 but never tried one out. Maybe I should? I wonder if that camera will be replaced soon? Seems long in the tooth.

 

Yeah I agree it is probably due to be updated, but you know they will raise the price and will not be able to find a used one.

I don't understand why your 1DX mk II can't get the job done with say a Atomos Flame to be able to use the video aids on it, False color, WF, Zebras, on and on? Man that is a camera to die for with DPAF, form factor, long lens use etc.

Or I read that you can't do clean 4k out, only HD?? Is that true?

[ajay]

1 minute ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah I agree it is probably due to be updated, but you know they will raise the price and will not be able to find a used one.

I don't understand why your 1DX mk II can't get the job done with say a Atomos Flame to be able to use the video aids on it, False color, WF, Zebras, on and on? Man that is a camera to die for with DPAF, form factor, long lens use etc.

Regarding the 1DXII. if I expose to save most of the highlights, it crushes the blacks. I have tried both EOSHD and Miller C-Log profiles and although they help, the dynamic range is not that good IMO. I have done tests with the GH5 and found the GH5 to have slightly better DR. From an autofocus tracking ability it is King!

[webrunner5]

Yeah but if you run an external recorder you could use ProRes if you edit on a Apple. I would think it might help with the overall output. I think the 1DX mk II is suppose to be 12 stops of DR. Not many cameras we can afford are going to do much better.

Plus the recording limit is endless, and you would be recording to SSD's instead of C Fast. Cheaper way to go.

But yeah I hate Crushed Blacks.. I can see why that would drive you crazy. 

[webrunner5]

Main problem, I see with the EVA1 is there is in reality no Auto Focus. Not in a continuous way. And it is not super high DR as you would think. 13 stops probably what it really is. But in reality your 1DX mk II is really more like 10 or 11. An old Alexa is 14 stops probably real life stuff. Sony FS7 is 14 stops also. Some of the Red cameras claim crazy DR, hell 20 stops on the new 8k Weapon!. Man that sounds hard to believe, but I did see a test where it was closer to it than you think. But for a Mere 50 thousand bucks we can get one to find out if true LoL.

Back to the old "ain't no perfect camera" thingy.

[ajay]

23 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but if you run an external recorder you could use ProRes if you edit on a Apple.

I believe it only outputs at HD and not 4k, plus external recorders make things a pain when outdoors lugging stuff down/up a trail. That's kinda the problem with the FS5. BTW the EVA-1 doesn't natively come with a viewfinder. Most of the time when shooting wildlife, I'm using a viewfinder.

I really don't need raw, just a compromise of some sorts with a somewhat greater DR. I've seen a few examples HLG with the A7III that look pretty good.

[webrunner5]

If I am outdoors lugging stuff down/up a trail I want a Sony A7xx or a m4/3!! For wildlife I would want the Olympus EM1 mk II for that . They seem to be the cats ass for AF for birding etc. I Loved my EM1. I have never tried a mk II.  Man that 12-100mm lens would be nice for hiking, wildlife.

Does your GH5 focus fast enough for wildife, birding?? I Know the 1DX mk II does!

[Lux Shots]

I haven't done any extensive testing on this point, but I know it depends on the profile you shoot on. I did a test where the GH5S was shooting a very high dynamic range scene. Very well lite industrial garage at night. I blew out most of the highlights in V-Log, but I was able to get some of it back in HLG.

[ajay]

There's a short clip that dpreview did comparing the GH5s vs the A7SII with the GH5s in HLG using Nick Driftwood's LUT. The GH5s does seem to hold the highlights better and shows slightly better DR.

 

[gelaxstudio]

On 2018/3/29 at 12:46 PM, webrunner5 said:

The DR for the GH5 ehh Cinema5D tested it at 10 Maybe 11 stops tops. Sounds about right. I can't find any real figure for the GH5s.

I think I would sell the GH5 and buy the Sony A7 mk III. Colors look pretty good on it also. And the low light on it is better than the Sony A7s mk II. And that is with 24mp. Crazy.

 

The DPreview had tested the GH5S,and its DR is around 11.3EV，quite the same as the  A7RIII(which  is  limited by its bit)

It looks like 10bit won't help carrying out all the DR？

[ajay]

6 hours ago, gelaxstudio said:

It looks like 10bit won't help carrying out all the DR？

I'm not sure 10bit vs 8bit is necessarily a factor for DR. It could be, but I think how the manufacturer implements the codec is more important. It does make a difference for color information and how rapidly footage falls apart while editing in post. If you look at the footage from the 8-bit codec from the Canon C200, it has DR that's definitely better than the GH5/s and Sony mirrorless cameras @8 bit, so there are other factors at play.

Sony's 8-bit SLOG-2 footage holds together better than Panasonic's 8-bit VLOG-L. I would never use VLOG-L @8-bit, only at 10-bit. Yet SLOG-2 edits quite well with only 8-bits. (SLOG3 is a different story. I'm not sure why Sony even puts SLOG-3 on 8-bit codec cameras.) You really have to try out each camera's codecs to see how well they handle post-editing and DR.

DpReview is attempting to test camera's codec performance. The industry really needs a comprehensive test that compares these cameras fairly on a level playing field.

[webrunner5]

Speaking of DPR, I found this Very interesting in the Reply Section to an article about the Sony A7 mk III.

 

"JochenIs

Manufacturers do not comply with the ISO standard. Newer cameras of the same manufacturer tend to have slightly less actual ISO at the same ISO settings to make the newer camera look better at the same ISO setting. Also different manufacturers might have different actual ISO. To future proof measurements and make them comparable to other brands we should measure the provided brightness at each ISO setting.
Also interesting does the shift of ISO setting change at the dual gain breakpoint?

Reply

3 days ago Rishi Sanyal

The ISO rating does not matter. It has zero relevance to actual photography. What matters is the image quality, or noise level, when the camera is given a certain amount of light.

That's why in our studio scene we always give every camera the same amount of total scene light at any given manufacturer ISO setting. This means that whenever you're comparing ISO X on one camera to ISO X on the camera, no matter how the manufacturer rated their ISO, you are comparing like for like. Both cameras are working with the same amount of light.

In fact, it's quite likely that in the future our reviews and measurements won't even talk about ISO numbers and, instead, only report on image quality at certain light levels.

Ultimately, that's what matters, not whether some manufacturer is 'lying' about its ISO. Manufacturers aren't 'lying', it's just that there are many different standards for reporting ISO value."

 

1 hour ago, ajay said:

I'm not sure 10bit vs 8bit is necessarily a factor for DR. It could be, but I think how the manufacturer implements the codec is more important. It does make a difference for color information and how rapidly footage falls apart while editing in post. If you look at the footage from the 8-bit codec from the Canon C200, it has DR that's definitely better than the GH5/s and Sony mirrorless cameras @8 bit, so there are other factors at play.

Sony's 8-bit SLOG-2 footage holds together better than Panasonic's 8-bit VLOG-L. I would never use VLOG-L @8-bit, only at 10-bit. Yet SLOG-2 edits quite well with only 8-bits. (SLOG3 is a different story. I'm not sure why Sony even puts SLOG-3 on 8-bit codec cameras.) You really have to try out each camera's codecs to see how well they handle post-editing and DR.

DpReview is attempting to test camera's codec performance. The industry really needs a comprehensive test that compares these cameras fairly on a level playing field.

I am no expert either on it, but I have seen on average most cameras that have the ability to shoot Raw has around a 3 stop advantage DR wise over a "normal" Codec using it. I Think it has to do obliviously with the Codec, but in reality most Raw is 12 bit, 14 bit, even higher. I just don't think you can get true 16 stops of DR or more out of a camera that doesn't shoot Raw, at least that's the way I see it.

But, but the highest ProRes settings do jump up there DR wise, but they are higher than 8bit, 10 also. So on paper 10 bit Ought to be better than 8bit, on and on.

[webrunner5]

12 hours ago, ajay said:

There's a short clip that dpreview did comparing the GH5s vs the A7SII with the GH5s in HLG using Nick Driftwood's LUT. The GH5s does seem to hold the highlights better and shows slightly better DR.

 

 

Hard to tell with the GH5s seeming to be a TON sharper? And why the hell don't these review sites take the damn pictures at the same time side by side???? I am sure they are not an hour apart, but they are at different times on a cloudy day.

And no, I am not disputing that the GH5s "might" have more DR, it is that it is damn hard to tell if it IS true LoL.

[anonim]

13 hours ago, gelaxstudio said:

It looks like 10bit won't help carrying out all the DR？

Sorry if I may look like for the moment as some sort of "smart ass" - but, from my totally practical experience, 10bit possibility really shines in grading flexibility - in thickness or density of available colors (inside the range), not so much in DR?

[ajay]

I found this video comparing the GH5 and A7III with regards to dynamic range. It appears the A7III has at least 1.5 stops more DR compared to the GH5. From what I've seen the GH5s might have about .5 stops better than the GH5 but still puts the DR behind the A7III by quite a bit. Of course there are other criteria that makes the GH5 line more appealing in other circumstances, but for myself, shooting outdoors, it appears the A7III might be a better choice for what I do:

 

[webrunner5]

With the GH5s Only being behind maybe 1 stop is pretty damn impressive if we think about it. Normally a APSC camera is 1 stop behind a FF camera. For a m4/3 to be 1 stop behind is damn impressive, and yes the GH5s has way more tools video wise than Any A7xx camera out there. Throw a Speedbooster on it and wow, damn near FF sized also.

[ajay]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

With the GH5s Only being behind maybe 1 stop is pretty damn impressive if we think about it. Normally a APSC camera is 1 stop behind a FF camera. For a m4/3 to be 1 stop behind is damn impressive, and yes the GH5s has way more tools video wise than Any A7xx camera out there. Throw a Speedbooster on it and wow, damn near FF sized also.

Yes, it is damn impressive. Plus, I already have a bunch of M43 lenses and a speedbooster.

[jonpais]

Apparently, dynamic range is directly related to bit depth.