Panasonic GH6

[webrunner5]

Look at Casey Neistat one of the most successful people ever on YouTube, he could afford any camera there was and he used a Canon 80D most all the time. He had talent, came up with crazy great ideas on shots. The footage looked great. He didn't need a Red or an Arri. He was good and knew how to use what he had.

The latest camera is not going to make any one of us really better, skill, talent, understanding every ounce your camera has, desire do that.

[webrunner5]

Sure the people on here making a living doing this stuff want and need the latest. And I am not knocking anyone that wants to buy new stuff, who doesn't. But new in this video game is not always the best overall image for what we really are looking for at the  hobby level. Horses for Courses I guess.

A lot of stuff I see on the web anymore could have been done with a new iPhone with a lot of skill involved. The gap is getting narrow for normal stuff.

[webrunner5]

Do you really think the GH6 is going to look any better, or even as good as this GH2 video? Interesting isn't it how we really haven't gotten better output..

 

 

[kye]

3 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Well, Mr. Claff's measurements don't stretch as far back as the GH1, but he does include the GH2. Here it is versus the GH6 and, to take a selective view, at its lowest ISO setting it is actually on a par with the the GH6:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Panasonic Lumix DC-GH6,Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2

Interesting site - haven't seen that one before.  Thanks for linking.

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Look at Casey Neistat one of the most successful people ever on YouTube, he could afford any camera there was and he used a Canon 80D most all the time. He had talent, came up with crazy great ideas on shots. The footage looked great. He didn't need a Red or an Arri. He was good and knew how to use what he had.

The latest camera is not going to make any one of us really better, skill, talent, understanding every ounce your camera has, desire do that.

Talent is required, but no amount of talent can compensate for the technicalities.

I got married on a cliff with the sun setting over the ocean and the iPhone photos from that were either a silhouette that could have been anyone or were me and my wife standing in front of digital white.  Luckily the photographer's 5D had a bit more DR and managed to make a photo of us and the sunset.

No amount of skill can overcome these things.

As much as you, and I, keep talking about skill and effort and technique, this is a camera specifications discussions website, so that's pretty much what the conversation is limited to.  Sadly, even that is too complex a topic for some!

[webrunner5]

Well, if the photographer had skill, he would not have put the sun in the background lol. But sure, I see your point. Like I said you have to know your equipment and I am afraid we change cameras so often, me also, that we never get to really know how to utilize their strengths and overcome their weakness.

In the days of film cameras, we kept the same one for years and years. We could operate them in our sleep. It led to better results than we probably do even now with better equipment. Switching brands doesn't help much either.

[MrSMW]

46 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Well, if the photographer had skill, he would not have put the sun in the background lol. But sure, I see your point. Like I said you have to know your equipment and I am afraid we change cameras so often, me also, that we never get to really know how to utilize their strengths and overcome their weakness.

With weddings, you don’t always get much or even any choice…

Sure, capturing the couple alone, you can pick your angles but in ceremonies, if the only angle you can see their faces is directly into the sun…

These things of course are never one thing nor the other, but the tech allows us to be ever more creative rather than is the source of the creativity itself.

I remember the quantum leap from Nikon D200 to Nikon D3 in low light capability when 1600 iso became accessible over shitty 400 and suddenly, digital could match and even beat film photography.

We reached the point, for me anyway, 3-4 years ago where I don’t want anything beyond what I already have in terms of capability kit wise. For me that is 4K 50p, good IBIS, decent tracking, good clean starting point files, photo and video. 

What I do want is improved use ability and for me that is now purely cross platform ergos, ie, the next time I change bodies, or even complete system, it will be because whatever I am changing to ticks the last pieces of that puzzle for me and I’ll run with that as long as I can.

But 8k or 100+mp or 100,000+ iso doesn’t play a part.

I would like a little better AF tracking from Lumix however…😜

Will I complain if my next camera offers 6k 120p AND improved DR? Nope, but I don’t crave or need it and stuff like that is not a consideration/purchase factor.

[webrunner5]

Well, the manufactures are not going to stop, so I guess the sky is the limit on resolution and features. Not a bad thing overall but it is the slippery slope of never really learning the camera you have.

But you make a living doing this so you need all the help you can get, and a newer camera is probably going to make your life easier. Cameras seem to hold their value pretty well and the newer ones keep getting cheaper. 

[PannySVHS]

On 4/20/2022 at 3:02 AM, webrunner5 said:

Have you ever owned a GH2? If you look on the web you will find plenty of great pictures and I think probably better filmic footage with the hacks than the GH6 does in 1080p

My old Panasonic G7 had better looking 4K than my GH5 had to my eyes. I don't think they are going forward at all.

Highlight roll off with the GH2 is not pleasant in video. Lumix G6 already looks so much better.

GH5 is a powerhouse of an image taker. I have a G7 but only tested a for three different shooting days. Loved it in Natural profile, disliked it in CineD in combination with a vintage 28 85 Tokina zoom. HD was beautiful. If it had a 100mbit codec for HD, but that´s my complain about all the panny 8bit cams other than the GH4.

But I get your impression regarding  quality of a color palette. But it is regarding amount of tones and hues and precision and what you can do with it in post. OOC, the GX85 is the best I have owned. But 709 in camera look for narrative shortfilm is not the greatest idea. You will always need grading or pregrading, if these 8biters allowed 3d lut implementation.

[webrunner5]

I never owned a GX85 but yeah, the footage out of them looks great. The GH2 was not so hot OOC, well it was at the time, but the hacks are what made it memorable, even today.

The more DR the better but depending on the scene even 8 or 9 is adequate. Supposedly we can see up to 16 stops with our own eyes. To get that you are going to have to have a 14, 16 bit camera to do that. Most upper tier still cameras have that much DR, no cheap option out there as of yet for the video side. Arri, Red territory. 

[MrSMW]

The MK1 human eyeball is reckoned to be able to ‘see’ up to 30 stops, but only around 10 or so at any given time.

Mine these days feel more like 3 at all times…

How much is laser surgery?

[newfoundmass]

Dynamic range is great, but it's one of those things that only people like us notice. As long as it's not absolutely horrible, the average viewer isn't going to notice. In all the stuff I've delivered from my GH3, GH5, G85, and GX85 over the last 10 years, not one person has ever complained about "dynamic range" even if *I* personally had quite a few instances where I wish I'd had more. If anything, having cameras with limited dynamic range has helped me grow and learn; I learned to expose for windows and then add lights to subjects during interviews to make up for using cameras that didn't have great dynamic range. Did it take a little extra work and equipment? Yeah. But I don't know, it never felt like that big of a deal to me.

[kye]

7 hours ago, MrSMW said:

The MK1 human eyeball is reckoned to be able to ‘see’ up to 30 stops, but only around 10 or so at any given time.

Mine these days feel more like 3 at all times…

How much is laser surgery?

Think of it like diffusion.

46 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Dynamic range is great, but it's one of those things that only people like us notice. As long as it's not absolutely horrible, the average viewer isn't going to notice. In all the stuff I've delivered from my GH3, GH5, G85, and GX85 over the last 10 years, not one person has ever complained about "dynamic range" even if *I* personally had quite a few instances where I wish I'd had more. If anything, having cameras with limited dynamic range has helped me grow and learn; I learned to expose for windows and then add lights to subjects during interviews to make up for using cameras that didn't have great dynamic range. Did it take a little extra work and equipment? Yeah. But I don't know, it never felt like that big of a deal to me.

I fundamentally disagree - people will notice and will complain HARD when there isn't enough DR.

"Why is the sunset white?" "Why are the people in front of the sunset pitch black?"

What you are saying above is essentially "People don't care about DR, assuming that they're not operating the camera, and assuming that whoever did operate the camera either controlled the scene to not exceed the DR of the camera, or filtered out all the shots without enough DR so that the person only saw shots where the camera had enough DR".

That's a VERY different statement than they don't care.

[webrunner5]

I think he is talking about the end user. I can't remember any TV show that I said to myself they need to fire the DP or the Director. And I am sure not all of them had 15 stops of DR even to start with. So, I bet the average person doesn't have a clue if it is lit right, aimed at a window or what. It is all about the story anyway. If it isn't something you like, you turn the channel, simple as that.

[newfoundmass]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Think of it like diffusion.

I fundamentally disagree - people will notice and will complain HARD when there isn't enough DR.

"Why is the sunset white?" "Why are the people in front of the sunset pitch black?"

What you are saying above is essentially "People don't care about DR, assuming that they're not operating the camera, and assuming that whoever did operate the camera either controlled the scene to not exceed the DR of the camera, or filtered out all the shots without enough DR so that the person only saw shots where the camera had enough DR".

That's a VERY different statement than they don't care.

The examples you use are the exception, not the rule. People focus on the story first, not whether they can see what's on the outside of a window for a couple of seconds during a shot. I don't mean to be condescending, but when I first started working in video in 1997 the cameras we had couldn't touch even the lowest end cameras released in the last 10 years in terms of dynamic range. We still filmed commercials, television, and (others, not me personally) low budget films with them though. People didn't poo poo that content because the cameras lacked the dynamic range of an Arri or RED, and most wouldn't now. Indeed, there are still commercials, television, and films that are filmed today on lower end cameras with so-so dynamic range, that are aired on television and streaming services without most noticing or caring that they don't have amazing DR. Do I notice it? Yeah, but most people aren't you and me.

If you have a camera that has great dynamic range, that's awesome! It's a very good thing that we have access to cameras that are capable of so much more than what we had to work with when I was young and just starting on my video journey, but the lack of DR never stopped us then, and it shouldn't stop anyone now. Story will always be most important, and if you have a compelling story that's far more important. Stop worrying about a couple stops of dynamic range and just create something, especially when most of the people viewing it won't think "gee, that was pretty good but I wish it had more dynamic range!"

 

[kye]

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

The examples you use are the exception, not the rule. People focus on the story first, not whether they can see what's on the outside of a window for a couple of seconds during a shot. I don't mean to be condescending, but when I first started working in video in 1997 the cameras we had couldn't touch even the lowest end cameras released in the last 10 years in terms of dynamic range. We still filmed commercials, television, and (others, not me personally) low budget films with them though. People didn't poo poo that content because the cameras lacked the dynamic range of an Arri or RED, and most wouldn't now. Indeed, there are still commercials, television, and films that are filmed today on lower end cameras with so-so dynamic range, that are aired on television and streaming services without most noticing or caring that they don't have amazing DR. Do I notice it? Yeah, but most people aren't you and me.

If you have a camera that has great dynamic range, that's awesome! It's a very good thing that we have access to cameras that are capable of so much more than what we had to work with when I was young and just starting on my video journey, but the lack of DR never stopped us then, and it shouldn't stop anyone now. Story will always be most important, and if you have a compelling story that's far more important. Stop worrying about a couple stops of dynamic range and just create something, especially when most of the people viewing it won't think "gee, that was pretty good but I wish it had more dynamic range!"

 

Well, I covered that in my description - people don't care about DR.........IF they're shown ONLY images where it's not a problem for the story.  

I think I've personally seen about a third of the people I know struggling to take photos of their kids against a bright background and maybe a quarter of them have sworn out loud while struggling with the DR challenge.  I'm not that social a person, but just check your Facebook feed to see how many parents of school-age kids are taking pictures of them on their first day back to school in the new year.

If you think that CAMERA = WATCHING TV then sure, no-one cares about DR, but if you think that CAMERA = CAMERA then millions upon millions of people care about it.  Ask people if they think that the quality of digital cameras has improved over the last 20 years and I'm pretty sure you'll find people perk up and talk about the photos they can take, rather than talk about the TV they watch.

When I was travelling in India with a charity we went out to the villages of the rural poor and they lived in the middle of nowhere down dirt roads and had dirt floors.  However, they had old cellphones and were very happy to show photos of their kids.  These people did not have a TV. (or running water, or access to proper sanitation)

Perhaps you're forgetting, the TV show you're making is the most important thing for you but for your audience they couldn't give a stuff about it compared to the images they want to make of their own friends and family.  They say that we need to make things where the audience identifies with the characters because people want to watch TV and movies that are "about them"...  well, the photos they take are ACTUALLY of them.  You can't beat that.

[webrunner5]

I don't really think people anymore are using real cameras to take any pictures of anyone. They are using their Smartphone. Sure in India they are using older stuff. And I can guarantee that if you take your camera and they take their cellphone and you each walk around town and take 50 pictures each the cellphone pictures will come out looking better 90% of the time and your camera will be correct 60% of the time or less.  

Smartphones now just work and work an amazing amount of the time looking damn near perfect for the average person. Real cameras are still back in the Stoneage compared to the AI in phones. Sure, they are not going to look like a Fuji GFX 100 shot with great skill and patience, but that is the advantage of the phones you don't have to have skill and patience to get what we used to call "keepers".

A couple more advances in Smartphones, mostly on the lens side of it, zoom particularly, and it is game over for any camera to be honest that we can afford. Hell, I can't out do my smartphone now even with my 1DC for normal stuff. If I had to get a shot, going to a friends' wedding I am taking the Phone lol. Now I am not talking about being the main photographer here, but I bet the main photog wishes he or she could be OK using a Smartphone for a lot of the stuff.

[newfoundmass]

The average person filming their kid's ball game on their phone probably don't care if the sky is a bit blown out as long as they can see their kid playing clearly. I have never had a conversation with the average person about it, so I genuinely don't know, but do they even know what dynamic range is? Do a majority of people even know what HDR stands for, or what it really means on their TV? I literally never hear anyone outside our bubble talk about it.

[webrunner5]

I can tell you the newer iPhones Don't blow out the sky, they are damn near perfect all the time. The computational math in them and AI is scary good these days.

[kye]

I'm not even sure WTF we're talking about here any more..  

Sure, phones are "real cameras", no-one uses "real cameras" any more, people don't care about digital clipping as long as they can tell who is in the photo, and if people don't know what the specification is called then the effects in the image don't matter or are somehow invisible until you can memorise the acronym and then they magically become visible.

I now feel much more educated, and it's definitely all very relevant to the GH6 and it's dual-gain technology.

[newfoundmass]

3 hours ago, kye said:

I'm not even sure WTF we're talking about here any more..  

Sure, phones are "real cameras", no-one uses "real cameras" any more, people don't care about digital clipping as long as they can tell who is in the photo, and if people don't know what the specification is called then the effects in the image don't matter or are somehow invisible until you can memorise the acronym and then they magically become visible.

I now feel much more educated, and it's definitely all very relevant to the GH6 and it's dual-gain technology.

No one forced you to respond to my initial post about dynamic range, and no one forced you to be rude because others think differently about it than you do. 

Everyone has different philosophies when it comes to filmmaking and video. This forum would be much better, and much more informative, if we moved beyond just talking about specs and also shared our philosophies, knowledge and experiences. Those are my favorite posts. 

Give me the threads where people actually share their experiences and thoughts about a camera they're using instead of yet another discussion about dynamic range, and why a camera is no good because it doesn't have 16 stops when camera X does for less money.