Panasonic GH6

[PannySVHS]

 

14 minutes ago, Matthew Capowski said:

Can anyone confirm if the Metabones Nikon 0.58X M43 speed booster can be attached to the GH6 without causing any damage?

 

Seemingly not worthwhile to apply the 0.58 booster on a GH camera regarding quality of output. It also might damage it. GH4 or G7 might be okay regarding the smaller crop in 4K but then no 10bit. Check out this thread. All you need to know:

 

 

[Matthew Capowski]

9 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

 

 

Seemingly not worthwhile to apply the 0.58 booster on a GH camera regarding quality of output. It also might damage it. GH4 or G7 might be okay regarding the smaller crop in 4K but then no 10bit. Check out this thread. All you need to know:

 

 

Much thanks.  I will stick to the 0.64X then. 

[John Matthews]

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the conclusions from Caleb Hoover's video concerning the GH6 and S5ii?

 

[kye]

6 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the conclusions from Caleb Hoover's video concerning the GH6 and S5ii?

 

At this point, even if the CDAF made coffee and told you next weeks lotto numbers, no-one would believe that it was capable of anything.

I've maintained that DfD and AI based processing AF would get good enough that it would catch up, but haters gonna hate and "PD=GOOD CD=BAD" was always a simpler and therefore more desirable view to have.  Plus, anyone over 20 has had a bad experience with a super-cheap CDAF system.  Maybe the prejudice will finish with Gen Z?

It's been years since I've seen a cameras AF fail to focus, these days focus "failures" are where the camera focuses quickly and accurately on the wrong thing, and PDAF does this just as much because CD or PD AF has literally nothing to do with that part of the AF functionality.

[John Matthews]

7 hours ago, kye said:

At this point, even if the CDAF made coffee and told you next weeks lotto numbers, no-one would believe that it was capable of anything.

That's pretty much it.

7 hours ago, kye said:

I've maintained that DfD and AI based processing AF would get good enough that it would catch up, but haters gonna hate and "PD=GOOD CD=BAD" was always a simpler and therefore more desirable view to have.  Plus, anyone over 20 has had a bad experience with a super-cheap CDAF system.  Maybe the prejudice will finish with Gen Z?

Messing around with my gh2, it would do CAF just fine with the right lens and simple background.

 

7 hours ago, kye said:

It's been years since I've seen a cameras AF fail to focus, these days focus "failures" are where the camera focuses quickly and accurately on the wrong thing, and PDAF does this just as much because CD or PD AF has literally nothing to do with that part of the AF functionality.

The Achilles heel is of course the constant back-and-forth pulsing on highlights. The strange thing is that I rarely noticed it on my Olympus CDAF systems, only Panasonic DFD. Is it possible that Olympus figured it out but Panasonic never did, even with all the protests from users?

[ac6000cw]

I had a play recently (inside a camera shop) with an S5ii, X-T5 and OM-1.

On the S5ii shooting FHD at 50p, in full-frame mode it does not use PDAF (it uses DFD instead) but it does use it in APS-C mode.

The difference in C-AF responsiveness and focus speed was very noticeable - it was pretty snappy in PDAF, much slower in DFD. I was pointing the camera alternately at something in the far end of the shop and at something quite close using a simple mid-size focus area (no subject detect). I would say the AF was pretty confident and smooth in both cases though.

The X-T5 AF was very 'snappy' (with the 16-80 lens on it), the OM-1 similar to the S5 ii in PDAF (with the 12-40 mk2 lens) - but both have adjustable AF speed and sensitivity (as does the S5ii) so that doesn't necessarily mean much.

At the current offer prices in the UK, an S5ii kit with 20-60mm plus 50mm lenses is quite tempting at £2099, but as I normally shoot in 50p it's basically an APS-C video plus full-frame stills camera for me. The X-T5 is smaller and lighter (the X-S20 even more so), but for video the Fuji lenses seem to be a mixed bag in terms of AF speed and smoothness (and the IBIS isn't yet at the Pana/Oly/OMDS level).

Personally I find the DFD on my G9 works perfectly well for the use cases I have - confident with smooth focus transitions and no/minimal 'pulsing'.

[John Matthews]

3 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

Personally I find the DFD on my G9 works perfectly well for the use cases I have - confident with smooth focus transitions and no/minimal 'pulsing'.

Good to know.

I also have a E-M1 ii with PDAF in video. It's true that it just seems to work. Currently, I'm trying to test the best settings for limiting the pulsing on the GH6. What I've noticed so far is that when I do handheld anything, the pulsing isn't that noticeable. If there aren't any specular highlights or lights in the background, it isn't that noticeable either. So, I'm trying to figure out what works in other situations (most likely just MF). The thing is when AF settings become super complicated, I think I'd just rather go with MF all the time. I was so put-off watching Philip Bloom's "Manual Autofocus" video on Sony that I just said "screw it". What settings do you use on your G9? In what situation?

[kye]

17 hours ago, John Matthews said:

The Achilles heel is of course the constant back-and-forth pulsing on highlights. The strange thing is that I rarely noticed it on my Olympus CDAF systems, only Panasonic DFD. Is it possible that Olympus figured it out but Panasonic never did, even with all the protests from users?

Ah yes, sorry, I'd completely forgotten the pulsing.

I suspect that there's probably a tradeoff in the coding somewhere.  My understanding was that the only advantage of PDAF vs CDAF was that PDAF knows which direction focus is in, whereas CDAF just knows what is in focus but not which direction to go in to get better focus.  This is why DfD is pulsing - it's deliberately going too far one way and too far the other way just to keep track of where the focus point is.  Maybe Olympus has just tuned their algorithm to be more chill about it, which would result in less pulsing but potentially more time slightly out of focus when the subject moves.

Of course, the reason that eye AF is now a thing is because people want to have a DOF that isn't deep enough to get the whole face in focus, so they need an AF mechanism that won't focus on someones nose or ear but get the eyes out of focus.  This really makes the job of AF much more difficult, and any errors that much more obvious.

I wonder how much Sony is implementing their focus breathing compensation due to the crazy amount of background blur that people want nowadays.  Even if you have perfect focus, when it tracks the small movements of an interview subject moving their head around the changes in size of the bokeh are so large and so distracting that focus breathing becomes a subtle (or not so subtle) pulsing of the size of the whole image.

I'm glad I don't have to deal with it.  Even though I'm moving to AF, I'm using AF-S only and having DoFs that are much more practical (and TBH, cinematic).

Maybe it's time to reverse the 'common wisdom' online and start saying that if you want things to be cinematic then you need to close down the aperture, and that the talking-head-at-F1.4 is a sign of something being video rather than cinema.

10 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

On the S5ii shooting FHD at 50p, in full-frame mode it does not use PDAF (it uses DFD instead) but it does use it in APS-C mode.

Wow..  So we're back to my iPhone 6 Plus where it had PDAF but didn't use it for certain things!  I didn't expect that from Panasonic in 2023.

6 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Good to know.

I also have a E-M1 ii with PDAF in video. It's true that it just seems to work. Currently, I'm trying to test the best settings for limiting the pulsing on the GH6. What I've noticed so far is that when I do handheld anything, the pulsing isn't that noticeable. If there aren't any specular highlights or lights in the background, it isn't that noticeable either. So, I'm trying to figure out what works in other situations (most likely just MF). The thing is when AF settings become super complicated, I think I'd just rather go with MF all the time. I was so put-off watching Philip Bloom's "Manual Autofocus" video on Sony that I just said "screw it". What settings do you use on your G9? In what situation?

I've seen a number of those "the AF is great, but you have to know how it works and choose the mode and perform integrals in your head to get the most out of it" videos, and I'm glad that I'm not using it TBH.  

[John Matthews]

9 hours ago, kye said:

I wonder how much Sony is implementing their focus breathing compensation due to the crazy amount of background blur that people want nowadays.  Even if you have perfect focus, when it tracks the small movements of an interview subject moving their head around the changes in size of the bokeh are so large and so distracting that focus breathing becomes a subtle (or not so subtle) pulsing of the size of the whole image.

I'm glad I don't have to deal with it.  Even though I'm moving to AF, I'm using AF-S only and having DoFs that are much more practical (and TBH, cinematic).

Maybe it's time to reverse the 'common wisdom' online and start saying that if you want things to be cinematic then you need to close down the aperture, and that the talking-head-at-F1.4 is a sign of something being video rather than cinema.

IMO, many people just do it to justify their FF cameras and f/1.2 lens. It can look lazy, stupid, and cliché nowadays. For me, I go for everything in focus when it looks good; otherwise, I aim for f/2.8-f/5.6 on S35 (f/2-f/4 on M43)- there's a reason this has been a standard for such a long time- it looks right and like the films I enjoy.

I also use AF-S, but sometimes I try AF-C.

[kye]

14 hours ago, John Matthews said:

IMO, many people just do it to justify their FF cameras and f/1.2 lens. It can look lazy, stupid, and cliché nowadays. For me, I go for everything in focus when it looks good; otherwise, I aim for f/2.8-f/5.6 on S35 (f/2-f/4 on M43)- there's a reason this has been a standard for such a long time- it looks right and like the films I enjoy.

I also use AF-S, but sometimes I try AF-C.

On my last trip I ended up using the GX85 and 14mm F2.5 as the main setup, and the saved profiles defaulted to the lens being wide open at F2.5.  I did a single AF (using the back-button focus method recommended by Mercer) and then hit record, and normally didn't AF again during the shot, although I only do short takes typically as I'm shooting for the edit.

I also used the 2x digital zoom, so that emulated a 28mm F5 lens on MFT.  According to the DOF Calculator, this lens wide open would have infinity in focus when focusing anywhere further than 17ft / 5m away.  I have since done some testing and the lens is sharper than 1080p (which is what I edit in) when wide open, so not much advantage to stopping down other than for extra DOF if I want it.

My videos are about the people interacting with the environment so DOFs that obscure the background aren't really necessary and beyond lending a bit of visual interest and depth to the shot, aren't desirable.  The DOF with the 14mm wide open was almost too shallow for closer shots, as I'd want to show more of the environment.  

This was likely wide open, simply for the low-light advantage, but I wouldn't want to blur the environment any more than this:

..but it did provide a nice background defocus for detail shots - this one is with the 2x engaged:

I've since decided that it's worth it for me to sacrifice a bit of speed for greater focal range, and will get the 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 pancake zoom when I travel next.  

I could just use my 12-35mm F2.8 lens, but it is significantly larger and I think the extra low-light (F2.8 vs F3.5) on the wide end isn't that much.  I don't typically use the longer end in low-light situations, and definitely don't need the extra speed at the long end for DOF - at 3m/9'10" the 12mm F2.8 has a DOF of 23m/75' and at the same distance the slower zoom at 32mm F5.6 has a much shallower DOF of 1.6m/5'3.  I can always carry that lens in my bag in case I need it, along with my 50/1.2 prime.

Obviously having larger apertures for narrative work would be desirable because you want to have consistent T-stops across the range and also to have the potential to open up a lot more if it is artistically appropriate to the emotional arc of the story.  Every good movie has a moment where the main character feels overwhelmed and disconnected, so needs a long shot of them with everything else blurred, right? 🙂 

[ac6000cw]

On 6/26/2023 at 5:30 PM, John Matthews said:

What settings do you use on your G9? In what situation?

For video, 'Continuous AF' Mode 2 with the default 'Set 1' AF settings (sensitivity 0, area switching 0, object prediction +1) and a slightly smaller custom version of the diamond-shaped 'central pattern' focus area for most situations. For wildlife I often use the animal subject detect with a smaller focus area. I rarely film people so I almost never use human/eye subject detection. I don't use tracking AF either - I'm normally a 'keep the subject in the centre of the frame' person.

From the manual:

 

 

[John Matthews]

28 minutes ago, ac6000cw said:

For video, 'Continuous AF' Mode 2 with the default 'Set 1' AF settings (sensitivity 0, area switching 0, object prediction +1) and a slightly smaller custom version of the diamond-shaped 'central pattern' focus area for most situations. For wildlife I often use the animal subject detect with a smaller focus area. I rarely film people so I almost never use human/eye subject detection. I don't use tracking AF either - I'm normally a 'keep the subject in the centre of the frame' person.

Interesting. Neither my G100 nor my GH6 have "object prediction" as part of their settings. I'm also a "keep the subject in the center" type; so, I understand where you're coming from.

7 hours ago, kye said:

I've since decided that it's worth it for me to sacrifice a bit of speed for greater focal range, and will get the 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 pancake zoom when I travel next.  

I also have the 12-32 and it's been a regularly used lens. I've even been able to add the Panasonic wide-angle teleconverter on it and it works very well for video as long as you shoot in 4k, making it about a 24mm angle of view with IS (with my G100). The lens is also super sharp. The only bugaboo with the lens is the lack of a manual focus ring, but this isn't that big of a deal.

[John Matthews]

I still can't get over exactly how good the 1080p 4:2:2 10 bit h.264 is on the GH6. The amount of detail and information in that file is simply astounding. I know others are enamored with the 5.8K open gate v-log, but I'm enjoying the 1080p as it blows away any other Panasonic I've had before at that resolution. I imagine the Prores 422 is even better.

[kye]

7 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

I still can't get over exactly how good the 1080p 4:2:2 10 bit h.264 is on the GH6. The amount of detail and information in that file is simply astounding. I know others are enamored with the 5.8K open gate v-log, but I'm enjoying the 1080p as it blows away any other Panasonic I've had before at that resolution. I imagine the Prores 422 is even better.

Great to hear!

Did you used to have a GH5 and shoot 1080p with it?  The impression I had from those who tested it online was that it was virtually flawless, so if the GH6 is even better then that would be a real achievement 🙂 

[John Matthews]

13 minutes ago, kye said:

Great to hear!

Did you used to have a GH5 and shoot 1080p with it?  The impression I had from those who tested it online was that it was virtually flawless, so if the GH6 is even better then that would be a real achievement 🙂 

No. I never had the GH5. I've used the GH2, GX80, G100, and GH6. I'd rank them like this:

1. GH6- 10 bit all the way up to 300fps! Over-sampled all the way up to 120fps. Prores, IBIS, 4:2:2, codecs, and then some!
2. GH2- 8 bit at high bit rates when hacked. Has an anti-aliasing filter for less moiré. The major flaw was a noisy blue channel and only really good 24fps. I shoot at 25fps. Use it very often in my live streaming atem mini setup. Super reliable.
3. G100- 8 bit, but frame rates up to 120fps. Fun camera to use.
4. GX80- 8 bit, but I was never really a fan of the 1080p on this camera. However, I should say that I never really tried it that much as the 4k was so much better, at least in my head at the time. It has unworldly IBIS for its size and 2016.

[hyalinejim]

If it helps,the two cameras using the same lens on a tripod collar:

GH5:

 

GH6:

 

This was a while ago and I think the light might have changed and I adjusted a Vari-ND? Looking at the skylight the pattern of polarisation changes. But it still should serve as a sharpness/detail comparison.

It's interesting to note the slightly wider FOV of the GH6! It must be a slightly bigger sensor, or it uses more of the sensor than the GH5.

[John Matthews]

3 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

This was a while ago and I think the light might have changed and I adjusted a Vari-ND? Looking at the skylight the pattern of polarisation changes. But it still should serve as a sharpness/detail comparison.

It's interesting to note the slightly wider FOV of the GH6! It must be a slightly bigger sensor, or it uses more of the sensor than the GH5.

Thanks for that. I can't tell any difference in those two frames in terms of detail. I know the GH6 has many more codec options and frame rates available over the GH5, but when it comes to pure image quality of 1080p 10bit at 24, 25,30, 50, and 60, I just wasn't sure. I've also heard the GH5s and G9 are exceptional (not sure for their 1080p). I was thinking about it earlier and I have to wonder if the GH6 has better noise performance in 1080p, due to the different sensor and processor. There must be some there.

I know my GH2 shoots WAY wider than most other M43 cameras, but I wasn't aware of any difference between the GH6 and other M43 cameras. Could this be due to a different tripod plate? The difference is so minor.

[hyalinejim]

GH6 noise is supposed to be slightly worse than GH5, according to CineD as far as I remember.

In the shots above, the lens was mounted to the tripod, not the cameras. So it is a real difference in FOV!

[John Matthews]

13 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

GH6 noise is supposed to be slightly worse than GH5, according to CineD as far as I remember.

In the shots above, the lens was mounted to the tripod, not the cameras. So it is a real difference in FOV!

I looked on their site review of the GH6, but I couldn't find any info regarding the GH5 (original) and noise tests in 1080p. I've looked at online versions of 1080p of the GH5 and it looks great too. Still, I don't think it has the same codec options and frame rates.

[kye]

4 hours ago, John Matthews said:

I looked on their site review of the GH6, but I couldn't find any info regarding the GH5 (original) and noise tests in 1080p. I've looked at online versions of 1080p of the GH5 and it looks great too. Still, I don't think it has the same codec options and frame rates.

I have the GH5 and GX85 but not the GH6, but I absolutely agree that although the GX85 is a great 4K 8-bit camera, the 1080p on the GH5 is in another league entirely.  Prior to the GH5 I was using the XC10 and shooting C-Log, which in theory is a better colour science and a better codec, but the XC10 is only 8-bit and is way noisier, and you can absolutely tell the difference in post.  Watching colour grading tutorials with ARRI footage they seem to be able to push and pull it anywhere in basically any direction and it just goes there flawlessly - the GH5 feels like that in post.

I've (finally) worked out colour management in Resolve and graded a bunch of clips from different cameras and the files from the GH5 were the easiest to grade by a large margin.

The fact the GH6 has more modes / frame-rates / codec options would just be better again than the GH5.  I have heard it is noisier though.