Any alternatives to a G80/85?

[bluefonia]

I have been away from this forum and filmmaking the last couple of years - been busy making music.

Now I have some time to filmmaking again and consider a new camera to compliment my GH4.

Two years ago without no doubt I would have bought a G80/85, but things move fast these days, so my question goes:  Is the G80/85 still considered a good camera or are there some newer alternatives?

Don’t need a top notch camera and like to stay within the G80/85 pricerange. Shooting 4K is fine and have no need for super slowmotion/highspeed.

Main demands are better lowlight performance than the GH4, build in stabilization and a good screen/viewfinder as my eyes have been better ? 

 

NB.: To my knowledge build in stabilization works with old manual glasses like Yashica, and Zeiss - or maybe I'm wrong? 

[newfoundmass]

The G85 is still an excellent camera in 2018/2019. For a lot of smaller projects I'll grab it instead of the GH5. 

IBIS works with vintage lenses, you just have to manually set the focal range. 

[IronFilm]

Surprisingly, even two years later, I think the Panasonic G85 is still the best sub $1K camera to buy secondhand. You need to push up beyond the $1K price barrier before you find better cameras: X-T3 / GH5 / BMPCC4K (each around US$1.5K ish)

I'll likely pick up for my vlogging a G85 myself on eBay in 2019 when I find a tempting enough price. 

[webrunner5]

You can buy a GH5 for 1100 dollars. Just sell the GH4.

 

[Vintage Jimothy]

My G85 is a great camera. While I'm personally looking at upgrading to the Blackmagic Pocket 4K sometime next year, I'm definitely keeping my G85 around for a long time. It's a reliable workhorse.

On 12/19/2018 at 4:24 AM, newfoundmass said:

The G85 is still an excellent camera in 2018/2019. For a lot of smaller projects I'll grab it instead of the GH5. 

IBIS works with vintage lenses, you just have to manually set the focal range. 

Yep. The results I get out of my Helios 44-2 and Minolta Rokkor PG 50mm f1.4 are really great with the G85. Gotta be sure you're able to deal with the significant crop factor, but the IBIS on the G85 really does help it pair well with those vintage lenses.

[kye]

I can't speak to the G80/85 but as a recent GH5 buyer I can confidently say that the lenses are the other half of the picture, and if you have to stick to a budget then put some aside for great glass.

I've just done a couple of trips with the GH5, Voitlander 17.5mm f0.95, Helios 44-4, and SLR-Magic 8mm, and the stand out aspects to me are the DR, the 10-bit capture, and the three lenses.  The 8mm has that WOW factor for scenery and landscapes, the f0.95 gives that lovely DOF on the MFT sensor and great low light performance (better than the human eye), and the Helios gives a soft rendering that really looks like film and without a speed booster gives a 116mm equivalent and rounds out the lens kit.

I have no idea how much you sacrifice from the GH5 with the G80/85 but I get the impression it's not so much?

Edit: I shoot hand-held and the IBIS worked spectacularly well, at 58mm in gusty winds on a small boat the locked-off mode gave rock solid landscape shots even with the ETC digital zoom mode making it something like 160mm equivalent, it was just incredible.

[Adam Kuźniar]

On 12/18/2018 at 5:01 PM, bluefonia said:

Main demands are better lowlight performance than the GH4, build in stabilization and a good screen/viewfinder as my eyes have been better ? 

 

You're getting all of that in the G80/85. I happily shoot up to 3200 for Youtube, IBIS is a game changer and the screen is tack sharp for focusing.

 

Honestly if I could get 4k 60 and better AF I'd not switch to anything else for video/vlogging.

[Martin Matěj]

I am using G80 for like half a year or more for everything including paid work:

https://vimeo.com/martinmatej

And I still love it!

I am handheld kind of guy and the ibis works super well.

I also use it with viltrox EF-M2 adapter speedbooster.

I had a problem with stabilization on already stabilized lens when the switch on the lens disables even the ibis in G80 or when I left the stabilization switch on canon 70 - 300 4 - 5.6 on the camera freezes after few seconds of filming and then I have to detach the adapter and restart the camera.

But when I use it with sigma 17 - 50 2.8 Ef mount version with no stabilization on the lens just stabilization in G80 is on it works perfect.

I also had some problems with that adapter and vintage glass without electric contacts so be aware. 

But all in all the G80 was and still is a great camera that I bought second hand for like 500 USD.

If you want 4K 60p you could go for second hand panasonic G9 which costs somewhere between G80 and GH5.

[thebrothersthre3]

Definitely a good choice, significant upgrade from a GH4.

[ntblowz]

20 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Surprisingly, even two years later, I think the Panasonic G85 is still the best sub $1K camera to buy secondhand. You need to push up beyond the $1K price barrier before you find better cameras: X-T3 / GH5 / BMPCC4K (each around US$1.5K ish)

I'll likely pick up for my vlogging a G85 myself on eBay in 2019 when I find a tempting enough price. 

 

Same here! I m still trying to get a good priced G85 after i sold my a6500  (the other g85 I won the seller refund the money because he felt the final price is too low.. wtf?)

The size for G85 is good size, not as big/heavy as gh5, much better ergonomics than a6500.

[newfoundmass]

17 hours ago, kye said:

I have no idea how much you sacrifice from the GH5 with the G80/85 but I get the impression it's not so much?

Very, very little. The extra crop in 4K can be a bit of a hassle, no headphone jack stinks, and there are a couple of minor features missing that the GH5 has, but I'd argue 85% of the time it'll do everything most people would use the GH5 for. 

Image quality wise there isn't a ton of difference. You can cut between the two and they'll match perfectly with minimal, if any, tweaking needed. 

Panasonic really doesn't get enough credit for the G85. It was incredibly brave to pack so much into that camera knowing a few months later they'd be announcing the GH5. It will follow the G7, I think, in having a long, healthy life cycle. 

[kye]

2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Very, very little. The extra crop in 4K can be a bit of a hassle, no headphone jack stinks, and there are a couple of minor features missing that the GH5 has, but I'd argue 85% of the time it'll do everything most people would use the GH5 for. 

Image quality wise there isn't a ton of difference. You can cut between the two and they'll match perfectly with minimal, if any, tweaking needed. 

Panasonic really doesn't get enough credit for the G85. It was incredibly brave to pack so much into that camera knowing a few months later they'd be announcing the GH5. It will follow the G7, I think, in having a long, healthy life cycle. 

I did a quick scan of the differences and I guess the 10-bit video is something I care about, considering how much I push the image around in post.  Of course, for most people this is probably a much less important factor.  Grading the 10-bit HLG files from the GH5 (even in the 150Mbit mode I shoot in) has been a wonderful experience so far.

[tweak]

HLG out of the GH5 is a pretty big difference. Also 5K 4:3 if you use anamorphic. If you're just shooting 1080p or 4K for web upload it's probably not a huge difference, but it's enough difference for me to choose the GH5. Your budget and needs for a project will determine the answer I guess.

If you like the GH4, the obvious choice is a GH5, you will love the upgrade.

[webrunner5]

8 hours ago, tweak said:

HLG out of the GH5 is a pretty big difference. Also 5K 4:3 if you use anamorphic. If you're just shooting 1080p or 4K for web upload it's probably not a huge difference, but it's enough difference for me to choose the GH5. Your budget and needs for a project will determine the answer I guess.

If you like the GH4, the obvious choice is a GH5, you will love the upgrade.

Yeah easy to spend someone else's money, but the GH5 sounds like a no brainier. The same body layout alone is a huge plus, not counting the same menu layout also. The GH5 is just about impossible to beat for video, and even the photos are not bad,  and for the price used, they are a steal.

[thebrothersthre3]

The GH5 is a good move. I miss mine. 10 bit HLG is amazing, the VFR was very nice too. 

[ac6000cw]

One difference between the G80/G85 and GH5 is that the G80/85 has some aliasing in 1080p, whereas the GH5 (and probably the G9) do proper, filtered, down-scaling from a full sensor readout, so have nicer looking 1080p.

Probably not an issue for a lot of material (or if you shoot in 4k), but I shoot a lot of video of things with fine horizontal/vertical lines, which show up the aliasing problem quite well when panning the camera across them... It's not a huge issue, but it is there.

The only other significant issue for me is crackling noises from the IBIS system breaking through onto the audio from the internal microphones - easily fixed with an external mic.

Otherwise it's a great camera (and noticeably fast to startup compared to the G6 I had before).

[shaolin95]

On 12/18/2018 at 9:01 AM, bluefonia said:

dp

 

I had the G85 for a while...even took it on a 1.5 months road trip in Europe along with my RX100 V. I couldnt disagree more about claiming you need to go much higher than $1000 to beat the G85..If you care about best 4k video IQ, the A6300 will easily beat the G85

I have been shooting Sony after I moved from a Pentax DSLR but have also played with Canon 5D IV, Nikon P900, etc...all sorts of cameras .
Honestly, the G85 never made my happy IQ wise. The 4k video just never had the detail, impact I saw from the A6300 I had before buying the G85. The reason I sold the A6300 is because I only wanted a one camera solution for behind the scene videos of my photoshoots that could also work as a travel camera with more flexibility and better IQ than my rx100 V.
Well,  the G85 surely has better IBIS than the A6300 (which has non) and the A6500 but is not perfect specially with wider lenses. The problem is...the IQ just let me down. Not only lacking in detail but also any time you push the ISO it will get grainy. At 3200 the difference to the A6500 is clearly noticeable. At 6400 is BIG and at 12800 is laughable really (the same goes for the G9).

Sure there are things I wish the 6500 had from the G85...namely a bigger body to have more controls (but this is a complicated matter since there are many that prefer an even smaller body so its a no win situation for Sony). Better IBIS would be nice but I figured that I am better of with a Gimbal instead either way.
But when it comes to IQ...this is a no contest and that is what counts to me the most, not to mention the video AF of the Panasonic is a disaster compared to the fantastic one from the A6500.
So I sold the G85 and bought an A6500 and couldnt be happier with the 4k video quality I get now. Sure if it would do 4k60p that would be even better so that is the main reason I would upgrade but not at a bank breaking price since my main camera is an A7R3.
Regards

[thebrothersthre3]

2 hours ago, shaolin95 said:

 

I had the G85 for a while...even took it on a 1.5 months road trip in Europe along with my RX100 V. I couldnt disagree more about claiming you need to go much higher than $1000 to beat the G85..If you care about best 4k video IQ, the A6300 will easily beat the G85

I have been shooting Sony after I moved from a Pentax DSLR but have also played with Canon 5D IV, Nikon P900, etc...all sorts of cameras .
Honestly, the G85 never made my happy IQ wise. The 4k video just never had the detail, impact I saw from the A6300 I had before buying the G85. The reason I sold the A6300 is because I only wanted a one camera solution for behind the scene videos of my photoshoots that could also work as a travel camera with more flexibility and better IQ than my rx100 V.
Well,  the G85 surely has better IBIS than the A6300 (which has non) and the A6500 but is not perfect specially with wider lenses. The problem is...the IQ just let me down. Not only lacking in detail but also any time you push the ISO it will get grainy. At 3200 the difference to the A6500 is clearly noticeable. At 6400 is BIG and at 12800 is laughable really (the same goes for the G9).

Sure there are things I wish the 6500 had from the G85...namely a bigger body to have more controls (but this is a complicated matter since there are many that prefer an even smaller body so its a no win situation for Sony). Better IBIS would be nice but I figured that I am better of with a Gimbal instead either way.
But when it comes to IQ...this is a no contest and that is what counts to me the most, not to mention the video AF of the Panasonic is a disaster compared to the fantastic one from the A6500.
So I sold the G85 and bought an A6500 and couldnt be happier with the 4k video quality I get now. Sure if it would do 4k60p that would be even better so that is the main reason I would upgrade but not at a bank breaking price since my main camera is an A7R3.
Regards

Definitely good points. For photography the A6300 would be my pick. The rolling shutter on the A6300 is horrid though, pretty much the worst camera out there in that regard. 1080p on the A6300 is also pretty bad, enough where I wouldn't buy it if I used 60p a lot. 

In terms of detail the A6300 is definitely better, though even in 4k it has Aliasing problems occasionally. 

[fuzzynormal]

I shot 6 documentaries on the DMC-GX85 (silver body looks cool). It's a really cheap camera these days --and I really had no complaints about it.  The IQ with fast lenses was more than adequate for me.  And, since it's so darn cheap, it's a great value.

BTW, if you want to go for a really cheap "c-camera" and 1080 is good 'nuff for you, then grab a GX7 for a few hundred bucks.  I always thought the IQ out of that camera had some serious mojo.

I'd buy and use that camera again for doc work if I was heading into demanding environments.  It's so inexpensive it's practically a disposable camera.

[kye]

8 hours ago, shaolin95 said:

 

I had the G85 for a while...even took it on a 1.5 months road trip in Europe along with my RX100 V. I couldnt disagree more about claiming you need to go much higher than $1000 to beat the G85..If you care about best 4k video IQ, the A6300 will easily beat the G85

I have been shooting Sony after I moved from a Pentax DSLR but have also played with Canon 5D IV, Nikon P900, etc...all sorts of cameras .
Honestly, the G85 never made my happy IQ wise. The 4k video just never had the detail, impact I saw from the A6300 I had before buying the G85. The reason I sold the A6300 is because I only wanted a one camera solution for behind the scene videos of my photoshoots that could also work as a travel camera with more flexibility and better IQ than my rx100 V.
Well,  the G85 surely has better IBIS than the A6300 (which has non) and the A6500 but is not perfect specially with wider lenses. The problem is...the IQ just let me down. Not only lacking in detail but also any time you push the ISO it will get grainy. At 3200 the difference to the A6500 is clearly noticeable. At 6400 is BIG and at 12800 is laughable really (the same goes for the G9).

Sure there are things I wish the 6500 had from the G85...namely a bigger body to have more controls (but this is a complicated matter since there are many that prefer an even smaller body so its a no win situation for Sony). Better IBIS would be nice but I figured that I am better of with a Gimbal instead either way.
But when it comes to IQ...this is a no contest and that is what counts to me the most, not to mention the video AF of the Panasonic is a disaster compared to the fantastic one from the A6500.
So I sold the G85 and bought an A6500 and couldnt be happier with the 4k video quality I get now. Sure if it would do 4k60p that would be even better so that is the main reason I would upgrade but not at a bank breaking price since my main camera is an A7R3.
Regards

Fair points.

I think that detail and sharpness are actually matters of taste and I like the image I'm getting out of my GH5 precisely because it doesn't have that digital sharpness that looks overdone to my eye. The look I'm getting looks more like film (to my un-refined eyes) and had a real timeless quality to it that I like.

Of course I'm shooting with the settings all tweaked for this result.

Perhaps the most important thing is knowing what you value and knowing what kind of image you like. All these cameras have tonnes of examples around so it's not hard to understand what they're all capable of.