Panasonic GH6

[anonim]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Plato, who was (and still is) one of the greatest philosophers of all time, was the first book on biology printed on the printing press and distributed widely.  One of the things he wrote was that women had less teeth than men.  The interesting thing about this isn't that he was wrong, it was that it was so easy to check, but for whatever reason, it wasn't done. 

 

Actually, it was Aristotle in book 2 of The History of Animals.

But for that (as famous ironical) quote is responsible B. Russel from the first/second page of his The Impact of Science on Society,  But in defense of Aristotle, it has to be said that final inclination of Russel was not quite true - because Aristotle indeed study that "teeth problem" - so is not example of non-scientific or, better, non-observational philosopher - but in rush derived his conclusion from animal world that he actually very deeply studied.

(Moreover, problem about this quote looks different with keeping in mind that in further original text Aristotle mentioned so called 'wisdom-teeth' and slight differences regarding period of its maturity in case of male and female, as some foundation for his claim...  Sorry, that's some sort of second profession of mine :)

[tweak]

I just want GH6 announcement.

[IronFilm]

17 hours ago, kye said:

And before that, people got excited when there was film fast enough to close down the aperture to have deep DoF shots....  in full daylight!

There was a deep DoF fad where everyone wanted to be able to create deep DoF shots.  Many famous movie scenes were shot where action unfolded in the foreground, mid-ground and background simultaneously, and it was all in focus!  Imagine the possibilities!!

The ARRI Alexa came out only a handful of years ago, and still is regarded as "latest cutting edge tech" (in a way). 

If you dig up reviews from back then, you can see people thought it was an amazing low light beast and were excited by the possibilities of shooting great images at 800 ISO! (which feels so quaint today)

[eleison]

On 2/29/2020 at 4:59 PM, Video Hummus said:

To be honest, sounds like the “lowly” GX85 punched above it’s weight.

There is much more to photography and videography than the fucking sensor size. “Oh, buts it’s not Full frame”. “Oh, it doesn’t have that FF look”.

......
......

Take a look at Chris Eyre-Walker or James Popsys. Think they care that they aren’t using FF? Nah, they don’t give a fuck.

So strange.  Why do some small niche of people hate on full frame so much?  If you like M43, so be it.  Just because a person is "all in" with m43 doesn't mean they should start putting down other technology.  Just go out there and shoot.

I tried M43 especially on the earlier cameras (owned gh2, gh3, rented the gh4 several times) .  It's just not for me.  To many compromises in my humble opinion.  Perhaps things have changed with the gh5.  I don't know, and frankly I don't care.  I have also own several apsc image camera (10d, 20d, 7d), I am an keenly aware of the field of view of smaller sensors.  If a person wants to shot their stuff on M43, I don't really care.  When I see someone with a M43 I think lower quality image acquisition (photographs), wide dof unless you buy something like a 18-35mm (which I owned) which makes the M43 camera system even bigger; bad autofocus; and you have to be cognizant of your setup if you want a shallow dof.. and also bad low light.  Perhaps the gh5s is good low light, but then its are missing ibis.  The M43 is really a mess for what I like to shot.

At the end of the day, full frame is what I choose and a lot of people want.  Do your own thing and if it works for you, fine.  However, as a previous m43 user, even with the touted advantages of the system NOW; it's just not for me.  Whatever technology that can make a smaller sensor better than a larger sensor (gh5s), that technology can be transported to the larger sensor and greatly improve that technology.  It's all about waiting a bit and full frame will get that technology.  Full frame will always be better in that respect.  I'm not wasting my time chasing rainbows.

[Cinegain]

I guess both of you have the same common focus ' x works for me. You do you and use what you use, I don't care'. There's no hate towards FF aside from the FF shooters that pretend it is the one and only and best way as of course it depends and it is not.

[newfoundmass]

FF is cool! I don't think Video Hummus was saying otherwise, @eleison. You came into the thread though saying, literally, the only advantage to M43 is "size" and asked me what other advantages there were. I listed them.

Like I said earlier, I'll happily go back to shooting on VHS camcorders if that's all I have to work with!

[UncleBobsPhotography]

29 minutes ago, eleison said:

So strange.  Why do some small niche of people hate on full frame so much?  If you like M43, so be it.  Just because a person is "all in" with m43 doesn't mean they should start putting down other technology.  Just go out there and shoot.

I tried M43 especially on the earlier cameras (owned gh2, gh3, rented the gh4 several times) .  It's just not for me.  To many compromises in my humble opinion.  Perhaps things have changed with the gh5.  I don't know, and frankly I don't care.  I have also own several apsc image camera (10d, 20d, 7d), I am an keenly aware of the field of view of smaller sensors.  If a person wants to shot their stuff on M43, I don't really care.  When I see someone with a M43 I think lower quality image acquisition (photographs), wide dof unless you buy something like a 18-35mm (which I owned) which makes the M43 camera system even bigger; bad autofocus; and you have to be cognizant of your setup if you want a shallow dof.. and also bad low light.  Perhaps the gh5s is good low light, but then its are missing ibis.  The M43 is really a mess for what I like to shot.

At the end of the day, full frame is what I choose and a lot of people want.  Do your own thing and if it works for you, fine.  However, as a previous m43 user, even with the touted advantages of the system NOW; it's just not for me.  Whatever technology that can make a smaller sensor better than a larger sensor (gh5s), that technology can be transported to the larger sensor and greatly improve that technology.  It's all about waiting a bit and full frame will get that technology.  Full frame will always be better in that respect.  I'm not wasting my time chasing rainbows.

I think you are reading too much into this. I am one of the persons who have been praising the GH5 in this thread, but I have 3 times as many full-frame bodies and probably 3 times as many full-frame lenses as well. Even though one guy had a good shoot with the GX85, I'm pretty sure most of us would prefer full frame for photography. Most of the FF advantages disappear when you get into video, which is why I go FF for photo and use my GH5 for video.

If Canon's next mirrorless ticks all the boxes I will probably switch to FF for video as well, but I think it's more likely that the GH6 will be a better video camera.

[Amazeballs]

Looking at XT4 I start thinking that APC-S could be the sweet spot between video-specs\overall size of the system\dof and lowlight\price. I wounder what X-H2 may bring to the table as well. 

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, eleison said:

So strange.  Why do some small niche of people hate on full frame so much? 

"Hate"??

I think you're missing the picture in terms of the usual proportions and intensity of debate. 

Usually for every dozen people you get saying "MFT is unusable" you'll see one person saying "FF is unnecessary", a big difference in both their type of arguments and the volume of them. 

Sometimes it is good just to bring balance back into the discussion.

 

[eleison]

1 hour ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

I think you are reading too much into this. I am one of the persons who have been praising the GH5 in this thread, but I have 3 times as many full-frame bodies and probably 3 times as many full-frame lenses as well. Even though one guy had a good shoot with the GX85, I'm pretty sure most of us would prefer full frame for photography. Most of the FF advantages disappear when you get into video, which is why I go FF for photo and use my GH5 for video.

If Canon's next mirrorless ticks all the boxes I will probably switch to FF for video as well, but I think it's more likely that the GH6 will be a better video camera.

 

Yes, I am probably "reading too much" into this :-)  also, another advantage for FF for video.  Cropping (panning, punching in, etc.).  I love cropping from 4k to 1080p on wide full frame lenses.  It basically turns full frame view into an APSC field of view.  I been using the 24mm 1.4; I love that lens.  M43 equivalent would be something like a 12mm F0.7 assuming you don't use a metabones adapter which slightly degrade imagine quality (which is of extreme importance because IMHO cropping in is very demanding on lenses) and adds bulk.  Actually, does the M43 ecosystem even have an equivalent lens?  There are 12mm lenses but none of them seem very fast in the M43 ecosystem.

Oh well, whatever.  Like they say, "you, be you".  My friend has a pocket 4k, but I still use my a7iii.  Having 10bit is nice, but there's just too many things that I find much more important in aggregate.  I would rather buy lights, pay actors more, add to the production value, etc...  than "upgrade" to a pocket 4k right now.  That being said, I can't wait unit the full frame hybrid cameras get their act together -- where the F is the next a7siii?   hahahahahah

[UncleBobsPhotography]

49 minutes ago, eleison said:

 

Yes, I am probably "reading too much" into this 🙂 also, another advantage for FF for video.  Cropping (panning, punching in, etc.).  I love cropping from 4k to 1080p on wide full frame lenses.  It basically turns full frame view into an APSC field of view.  I been using the 24mm 1.4; I love that lens.  M43 equivalent would be something like a 12mm F0.7 assuming you don't use a metabones adapter which slightly degrade imagine quality (which is of extreme importance because IMHO cropping in is very demanding on lenses) and adds bulk.  Actually, does the M43 ecosystem even have an equivalent lens?  There are 12mm lenses but none of them seem very fast in the M43 ecosystem.

Oh well, whatever.  Like they say, "you, be you".  My friend has a pocket 4k, but I still use my a7iii.  Having 10bit is nice, but there's just too many things that I find much more important in aggregate.  I would rather buy lights, pay actors more, add to the production value, etc...  than "upgrade" to a pocket 4k right now.  That being said, I can't wait unit the full frame hybrid cameras get their act together -- where the F is the next a7siii?   hahahahahah

Lack of lens options is a valid objection, but Voigtländer does have 10.5mm f0.95 lens as long as you don't rely on autofocus.

If you love cropping, the GH5 shoots 4992 x 3744 in 10bit...

The A7III is obviously a good video-camera, and I would rather call a Pocket4k a side-step than an upgrade. We are arguing that FF is not necessary, not that all FF cameras are bad.

[eleison]

1 hour ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

Lack of lens options is a valid objection, but Voigtländer does have 10.5mm f0.95 lens as long as you don't rely on autofocus.

If you love cropping, the GH5 shoots 4992 x 3744 in 10bit...

 

Dude, seriously I tried to move to the M43 ecosystem.  The A7iii has it's limitations (8bit color, IBIS is just ok,  flickering in certain light -- gh5 has the ability to fine tweak the fps so no flickering, also some FE lens don't have linear manual focus, etc.)   The fine adjustment of fps is important.  There are times I will not be able to shoot UNLESS I bring in lights because of the flickering.

The voigtlander seems interesting, but I doubt it is sharp enough for me.  I crop to 1.5X sometimes even 1.7X to export in 1080p.  With that extreme cropping, you will see the lack of details and sharpness.  My friend doesn't crop as much, so he doesn't really care about tack sharp lenses.  

Because the gh5 is M43, the starting field of view is already very narrow.  Cropping in 1.5X will be like shooting on a telephoto lense.  With the full frame, a 24mm F1.4, the aprox 1.5X, the crop will be like taking a video on a 36mm lens which is acceptable.  Because of this, there's more opportunity to crop with a full frame field of view.  Basically, I can film two people talking to each other and punch in to the actors faces separately and it would seem like I have two cameras shooting each actor separately.  I could do that with M43, but I would have to make sure I had the distance to get both into frame initially and/or they are standing fairly close to each other.

Dude, I'm just so excited about all the cool stuff we have right now.  Granted if M43 was the only mount, I would be excited too.  But full frame digital is giving us so much benefit as compared to just a few years ago.  I was listening to Roger Corman talk about his days as a director/editor.  What a loser.  he didn't have the cool stuff we have now :-) hahahahhaha  

[sanveer]

27 minutes ago, eleison said:

Because the gh5 is M43, the starting field of view is already very narrow.

And that's why there are lens options, to help with the field of view. 

 

@eleison this is for you. 

1 hour ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

If you love cropping, the GH5 shoots 4992 x 3744 in 10bit...

It's far easier to re-crop from 6k, than 4k. It has almost nothing to do with sensor size, and everything to do with the resolution. 

[eleison]

46 minutes ago, sanveer said:

 

@eleison this is for you. 

It's far easier to re-crop from 6k, than 4k. It has almost nothing to do with sensor size, and everything to do with the resolution. 

I guess that's a good thing since cell phones are starting to shoot 8k video now 😉  You be you.

[kye]

It's interesting that the people above that are saying "I use FF, but don't judge me because I tried m43 and couldn't get around the issues" and then they go ahead and list a bunch of details about MFT and just get half of them wrong....   

No wonder they couldn't get MFT to work for them - they fundamentally didn't understand it.

I get that everyone shoots differently, it's when they say "FF is better because it takes photos, but MFT just makes pig sounds and steals your CC details" that I get a bit annoyed.  Then again, I should account for this being the internet and just expect that idiots will just hang around waving their opinions around..

[tweak]

I don't know why I've read all this but I have and it's a weird discussion. The matter of fact is (and it's been proved many times) no one is going to pick the difference between FF or M43 shooting video (most couldn't pick it in a photo either), choose the right tool for the job and don't be mad if some people have a different idea of "the right tool".

I shoot FF for photos and M43 for video (albeit with Metabones XL mostly) and that's just because I feel those cameras give me the best use of lenses and the best value for money (specs wise), the sensor size for me isn't really a determining factor, I could easily bounce between M43, APS-C or FF and be happy (and I have at times).

[Video Hummus]

Well that’s just the thing. MFT gives me options and I’m willing to take the trade offs. Ask any MFT shooter and they will tell you the same thing.

There will never be a 100-400 f2.8 FF lens that fits in my cargo pocket.

I can add a metabones speedbooster and get very close to “the full frame look”.

The GH5 has offered 4K60p since 2017. With a speedbooster, it’s arguable been the best “super35” camera with IBIS until the XT4.

Trade offs? No bullet proof autofocus. The other disadvantages of MFT are or have been addressed with technologies like dual gain sensors, speedboosters, and extremely fast native 0.95 lenses.

Shallow depth of field is a style choice not a requirement.

I’m of the camp that a deeper depth of field is OK. It’s OK for the audience to get a sense of the scene. So the “disadvantage” of a deeper depth of field with a crop sensor camera isn’t really a problem for me...and when it is I can fix it easily with multiple options! In fact I would say MFT operates in the sweet spot for depth of field that is most commonly used in cinema. And we rarely criticize cinema in depth of field or camera used, it’s about the story, pacing, and actors.

So it’s annoying people keep repeating garbage talking points and talking down about this excellent format.

And the bottom line...you can buy and use whatever you want because most clients don’t care! Garbage is garbage wether it was shot on MFT or FF.

[kye]

The other point about lenses and sharpness is also very strange, as in higher end professional cinematography there are three groups:

• Those who deliberately chase softer lenses for how they render detail in a more flattering way
• Those who chase a clean modern resolution (but then use cinema lenses which are actually very soft in comparison to photography lenses - I suggest people go look at the actual data and do the research)
• Those who truly chase high resolution lenses and use high resolution sensors

The last segment is by far the minority.  I get it that if you're looking for a hybrid camera then you'll want imagesso sharp that you need those metal mesh gloves that butchers use just to pick up the SD card, but for cinematography, anyone who talks about sharpness is really just showing how disconnected they are to the cine industry in general.  and ditto for autofocus.

[Avenger 2.0]

On 3/2/2020 at 1:31 AM, tweak said:

I just want GH6 announcement.

Everyone I think. But until they 'fix' autofocus, we'll not be seeing a GH6...

[Rinad Amir]

3 minutes ago, Avenger 2.0 said:

Everyone I think. But until they 'fix' autofocus, we'll not be seeing a GH6...

Phase detect auto focus like Canon would be ultimate GH6 and to put icecing on top prores as codec 🥳 no need for 6k 8k 4k would be just fine