Panasonic GH6

[IronFilm]

17 hours ago, mirekti said:

The only advantage is a small overall camera size. 

And lighter. 
And cheaper. 
And sometimes new tech arrives for smaller sensors first. 
 

17 hours ago, mirekti said:

Regardig DoF, the problem is in the lenses. If f/1.2 lens had a round aperture there shouldn’t be an issue at all, one could close it to f/4, f/5.6 and get that “deep” DoF.

You close your lens down to f5.6 and you've now lost all the benefits you thought you gained by choosing a larger sensor. 

  

6 hours ago, mirekti said:

What are the other advantages, please? Rolling shutter is just a matter of time. 

Once all the FF have better rolling shutter performance then I bet MFT cameras will have leaped ahead and have even better rolling shutter performance than they do currently.
 

[newfoundmass]

It's amazing to me how dismissive people are of the benefits of M43. To me the only "insurmountable" negative of the system, at least on the Panasonic side, is the auto focus but even that, in my opinion, is overblown. Everything else can be pretty much remedied. Poor in low light? Throw a little light on your subject/scene! Need shallow depth of field? Just use the right lens! 

I understand why people love full frame. I really do! But you don't NEED full frame, you just WANT full frame. There's nothing wrong with that either but are you incapable of creating your vision using a smaller sensor? I doubt it. 

Two weeks ago I filmed a pro wrestling event with my 3 camera set up. My buddy did stills using the A7iii with the Sony 70-200mm. I blew his mind when I showed him the GX85 with the 35-100mm f/2.8. The two side by side was comical. Cost of his set up, by the way? $4,600. I paid $250 for the GX85 and $400 for the 35-100mm on the used market. Even if I bought them new though it'd have been $1,500. I know it's not the best comparison, but my buddy could've easily done his job with a G9 instead. Price of that new? $1,200.

I'm rambling, sorry, ha ha, but hopefully some of that makes sense! 

[eleison]

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

It's amazing to me how dismissive people are of the benefits of M43. To me the only "insurmountable" negative of the system, at least on the Panasonic side, is the auto focus but even that, in my opinion, is overblown. Everything else can be pretty much remedied. Poor in low light? Throw a little light on your subject/scene! Need shallow depth of field? Just use the right lens! 

I understand why people love full frame. I really do! But you don't NEED full frame, you just WANT full frame. There's nothing wrong with that either but are you incapable of creating your vision using a smaller sensor? I doubt it. 

Two weeks ago I filmed a pro wrestling event with my 3 camera set up. My buddy did stills using the A7iii with the Sony 70-200mm. I blew his mind when I showed him the GX85 with the 35-100mm f/2.8. The two side by side was comical. Cost of his set up, by the way? $4,600. I paid $250 for the GX85 and $400 for the 35-100mm on the used market. Even if I bought them new though it'd have been $1,500. I know it's not the best comparison, but my buddy could've easily done his job with a G9 instead. Price of that new? $1,200.

I'm rambling, sorry, ha ha, but hopefully some of that makes sense! 

Pros of the a7iii:

better low light (I hope the pro wrestling event had good lighting)
better slow motion (because sensor is bigger) - epic slow motion of body slams (120fps; try that in low lighting with a small sensor)
more accurate focusing.
better follow focus - epic shots of wrestlers walking into the stadium
better image if a large DOF was required due to fast moving action and the camera man was not sure where the focus of the action will be at any one time.

To be honest, the a7iii is the better tool for THIS job than the m43.  there are a lot of shoots that would be  difficult for the M43 camera to capture if not impossible as compared the the a7iii.  Almost every shot the GX85 did, the a7iii could easily reproduce.  The only positive I can think of is that the stabilization on the GX85 I think is a little bit better.

[thebrothersthre3]

7 minutes ago, eleison said:

Pros of the a7iii:

better low light (I hope the pro wrestling event had good lighting)
better slow motion (because sensor is bigger) - epic slow motion of body slams (120fps; try that in low lighting with a small sensor)
more accurate focusing.
better follow focus - epic shots of wrestlers walking into the stadium
better image if a large DOF was required due to fast moving action and the camera man was not sure where the focus of the action will be at any one time.

To be honest, the a7iii is the better tool for THIS job than the m43.  there are a lot of shoots that would be  difficult for the M43 camera to capture if not impossible as compared the the a7iii.  Almost every shot the GX85 did, the a7iii could easily reproduce.  The only positive I can think of is that the stabilization on the GX85 I think is a little bit better.

If he got what he needed at the show then any advantage the A73 has wasn't needed. 

[eleison]

41 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

If he got what he needed at the show then any advantage the A73 has wasn't needed. 

True... It wasnt needed for him.  Other people may find having those advantages indispensable.  After all, my sister thinks her gopro is good enough.  To each his own

[UncleBobsPhotography]

 

1 hour ago, eleison said:

Pros of the a7iii:

better low light (I hope the pro wrestling event had good lighting)
better slow motion (because sensor is bigger) - epic slow motion of body slams (120fps; try that in low lighting with a small sensor)

Is the A7III any better than a GH5s with an f0.95 or f1.2 at slow motion? I doubt it (unless you consider crazy lenses like the Sony FE 400mm F2.8)

I am extremely happy with my GH5 and Olympus f1.2 lenses. Sure, it's not perfect, but I don't see any better options for my use available.

[Thpriest]

I usually take a GH5, GH5S, 10-25 1.7, 12-35 2.8, 35-100 2.8, sound gear, monitor, maybe even a LED or 2 in a Lowepro 400 flipside backpack with a tripod strapped on the side. It's be difficult to take a similar 2 camera set up with FF.

The more I think about it what I really want from a GH6 would be GH5S performance with IBIS, some kind of ND, punch in to check focus whilst recording (don't think they can do that though), G9 evf, S1H lcd screen and slightly better ergonomics. The GH5 pair are already 2 great cameras.

A 35-85mm 1.7 to go with the other 1.7 zoom would be great.

And maybe a double battery attachment thingy (instead of 1 extra battery).

[Video Hummus]

2 hours ago, eleison said:

To be honest, the a7iii is the better tool for THIS job than the m43

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”.

M43 isn’t trying to be Full frame.

It’s a lovely system. It’s very capable and can punch above it’s weight in many categories. It’s a FUN system with lovely cameras. Ask anyone that goes out with their EM1 or G9. You get to pack a light pack and leave the tripod at home.

The new EM1.3 can take 50MP handheld Astro photography. Think about that for a moment. Are they as good as a FF camera with a tripod and some expensive lens? Probably not. I bet it was still fun as hell for the M43 user.

And that’s why people like Tony Northrop need to shut the fuck up when they don’t know what they are talking about. Like somehow M43 is inferior? It’s actually pretty amazing and flexible system!

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. They see the virtues and trade offs and then just create and capture some nice stuff, all most all of it handheld, with a small kit, in challenging conditions. They leverage the virtues of M43. But they aren’t using professional equipment because it doesn’t have a FF sensor in it? Phhftt.

And as we can see fromTony Northrop the full frame look can be highly over-rated. Thanks tony for the great memes. 

[Video Hummus]

24 minutes ago, Thpriest said:

I usually take a GH5, GH5S, 10-25 1.7, 12-35 2.8, 35-100 2.8

I have something similar and yep it’s pretty great. 18-200mm focal range with a mix of 1.7 and 2.8 apertures.

I’m definitely made up my mind to get an EM1.3 with the 24-100 f/4 as a landscape/wildlife combo for those days I just want to relax and have fun shooting. Can carry all I need in one hand. Don’t need a tripod. Don’t need a gimbal. Can do landscape or wildlife on a whim, maybe even Astro. Don’t need to worry about weather or rain as the EM1.3 is probably the best weather sealed camera out there besides the EM1X.

When or if we get a GH6 with GH5S lowlight ability and G9 or better stabilization then I’ll be extremely happy.

In my humble opinion f/1.2 on MFT is all I need for shallow DoF. I think FF f/2 is the limit for me, anything shallower just looks like shite for video. And people use it as a crutch.

Dont get me wrong. The GFX photos Andrew posted where really nice and creamy, but I consider that a special case for portrait photography. If that was a video, I’m sorry but it would be a party trick. It’s what I like to call “the FF fish bowl”. Great when you want to film in the toilet and not let the audience know where you are!

[newfoundmass]

3 hours ago, eleison said:

Pros of the a7iii:

better low light (I hope the pro wrestling event had good lighting)
better slow motion (because sensor is bigger) - epic slow motion of body slams (120fps; try that in low lighting with a small sensor)
more accurate focusing.
better follow focus - epic shots of wrestlers walking into the stadium
better image if a large DOF was required due to fast moving action and the camera man was not sure where the focus of the action will be at any one time.

To be honest, the a7iii is the better tool for THIS job than the m43.  there are a lot of shoots that would be  difficult for the M43 camera to capture if not impossible as compared the the a7iii.  Almost every shot the GX85 did, the a7iii could easily reproduce.  The only positive I can think of is that the stabilization on the GX85 I think is a little bit better.

He was doing photography, so I was speaking from that perspective when saying he could've gotten the same results with a G9. He probably could've done great with the GX85 too, though! He certainly probably wouldn't have complained about a sore arm half way through the event if he had! 

From a video stand point, Sony Mirrorless cameras have a number of flaws that make them poor fits for my work, chief among them the rolling shutter, the recording limits / overheating risks, and poor stabilization. My job is to film an event from start to finish, on multiple cameras, and then produce that event for streaming and home video. So I'm not looking for most of the things you've listed while filming the event, only when I'm getting b-roll for promotional material and most of that is filmed before the event starts. When I need slow motion though I go for 4K 60p. I prefer the resolution, personally, and it looks stunning. 

When I chose a system to buy into I had two things that were most important: size and versatility. When I'm doing handheld for 6 hours, almost non stop, I want a light camera. At that last wrestling event I walked over 14,000 steps. Carrying a GH5 and the 12-35 is a dream on days like that! And when it comes to versatility, well M43 can record until the card is full or the battery dies (whichever is first) so it's prefect for events, and it can just as easily be used for interview, narrative, and commercial work. 

And for the record, A7iii's stabilization is laughable compared to the GX85. My 3rd shooter was able to get incredible handheld footage with it zoomed in to 100mm. You simply couldn't accomplish that the A7iii, and the only full frame I've used that is better is the S1. 

For reference, my set up is a GH5, G85 and GX85. Generally I use 12-35mm lenses on two cameras and the 35-100mm on the third. 

[kye]

I find these conversations to be hilarious..  I suspect that no-one in this thread, or on these forums perhaps, actually knows enough to compare FF to crop sensors.  

Comparing FF vs MFT at a given FOV and DoF and exposure value is a complex picture, and no-one here is actually including all the variables.  There are lots of people on here that don't even understand that you have to apply the crop factor to the aperture value but not the exposure value!

No-one has even mentioned the GH5S dual-ISO yet - can anyone here speak with any actual experience of the impacts on DR and low-light ability between the A7iii and the GH5S when partnered with equivalent lenses?  What about the P4K or P6K?  What about the difference between the dual-ISO P6K shooting RAW vs the A7iii shooting compressed video?  What about now?  What about the relative noise levels in the shadows once we downscale the 6K RAW images onto a 4K timeline?  Still feeling confident in these broad sweeping statements are we?  What about when we apply enough NR to the 4K downscale of the 6K RAW images from the P6K to match the smoothing effects of the A7iii compression?  Still feeling like an authority on the subject?

Take a reality pill and a big step back people....

[IronFilm]

12 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

It's amazing to me how dismissive people are of the benefits of M43. To me the only "insurmountable" negative of the system, at least on the Panasonic side, is the auto focus but even that, in my opinion, is overblown. Everything else can be pretty much remedied. Poor in low light? Throw a little light on your subject/scene! Need shallow depth of field? Just use the right lens! 

I understand why people love full frame. I really do! But you don't NEED full frame, you just WANT full frame. There's nothing wrong with that either but are you incapable of creating your vision using a smaller sensor? I doubt it. 

Two weeks ago I filmed a pro wrestling event with my 3 camera set up. My buddy did stills using the A7iii with the Sony 70-200mm. I blew his mind when I showed him the GX85 with the 35-100mm f/2.8. The two side by side was comical. Cost of his set up, by the way? $4,600. I paid $250 for the GX85 and $400 for the 35-100mm on the used market. Even if I bought them new though it'd have been $1,500. I know it's not the best comparison, but my buddy could've easily done his job with a G9 instead. Price of that new? $1,200.

I'm rambling, sorry, ha ha, but hopefully some of that makes sense! 

Newbies can often be the worst in having the lust for "full frame", perhaps due to being susceptible to FF propaganda online and feelings of inadequacy? As they're just starting out. 

And yet, they should be the ones who are the most important of all to stay away from buying into FF! As their budgets are so very limited. 

Imagine someone who buys that a7mk3 (with a kit lens) & 70-200mm but gets nothing else, vs someone else who is smarter and gets a Panasonic G9 (with its kit lens, the 12-60) & 35-100mm f2.8, but now has so much spare money left over they can also buy the GX85 as a spare body, the 12-35mm f2.8 as well etc etc

 

11 hours ago, eleison said:

better image if a large DOF was required due to fast moving action and the camera man was not sure where the focus of the action will be at any one time.

Nah, the Panasonic G9 does that better. 

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, kye said:

I find these conversations to be hilarious..  I suspect that no-one in this thread, or on these forums perhaps, actually knows enough to compare FF to crop sensors.  

Comparing FF vs MFT at a given FOV and DoF and exposure value is a complex picture, and no-one here is actually including all the variables.  There are lots of people on here that don't even understand that you have to apply the crop factor to the aperture value but not the exposure value!

No-one has even mentioned the GH5S dual-ISO yet - can anyone here speak with any actual experience of the impacts on DR and low-light ability between the A7iii and the GH5S when partnered with equivalent lenses?  What about the P4K or P6K?  What about the difference between the dual-ISO P6K shooting RAW vs the A7iii shooting compressed video?  What about now?  What about the relative noise levels in the shadows once we downscale the 6K RAW images onto a 4K timeline?  Still feeling confident in these broad sweeping statements are we?  What about when we apply enough NR to the 4K downscale of the 6K RAW images from the P6K to match the smoothing effects of the A7iii compression?  Still feeling like an authority on the subject?

Take a reality pill and a big step back people....

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, except on one small point... the BMPCC6K isn't available with a MFT mount option. (but it should be! Bad BMD)

[newfoundmass]

I think a big thing missing from a lot of these discussions is perspective. When I first started making videos I was 10 years old and was using a VHS-C camcorder. In 1996, at 12 years old, I bought a RCA camcorder (with my first flip out screen!) In 2000 I bought a Hi8 camcorder. In 2002 I bought a miniDV camcorder. In 2011 I started using Sony handy cams. Eventually I bought my GH3, my first interchangeable camera. 

I had to work with what I had, and figure out ways to get around the limitations all of those cameras had. Back then that was even harder to do, but we did it and made it work! Looking back most of it sucks, but that had less to do with the equipment and everything to do with our skill level. 

My friends and I just wanted to create stuff. Things like dynamic range and low light capabilities really never crossed our minds. When I see people obsessing over full frame, or knocking the M43 system, I chuckle and think about the old days and how I never let that stop me.

I love creating. I'd still be using a VHS camcorder if it was all I had access to! Meanwhile people wanna act like M43 isn't adequate enough to create whatever it is you're trying to create.

[anonim]

3 hours ago, kye said:

I find these conversations to be hilarious..  I suspect that no-one in this thread, or on these forums perhaps, actually knows enough to compare FF to crop sensors.  

I tend to disagree. It seems to me that there are in general much more people that chase for specs and newer camera simply as some sort of an excuse not to go and spend more time enjoying shooting (with different reasons - having not enough time or energy, being obsessed more with technical aspects than creative expression etc. )  Such people pretty deeply study every single camera and enjoy in comparing and discussing them. And that's market wise ok and actually desirable. Today especially FF camera manufacturers greatly count on such potential buyers, because production of FF camera is now greatly in line with nowadays widely adopted selling strategy - greatest possible profit per one camera instead more cameras with with lesser profit margin for one (as is obviously Blackmagic's choice).

Back to topic, I think that crucial task and problem to resolve for Panasonic is to, above all, seriously rethink  their selling strategy (mostly after GH5s mistake and more earlier after giving up camcorder type m43 cine camera line), especially regarding GH6 and m43 in general - it could be their last chance to keep old and attract/get new numerous buyers in the field they gained ultimate reputation, and in the race with now much more flexible competitors.

[Amazeballs]

Still zero rumors for actual GH6 I have time till may (XT4 shipment start) to make up my mind. 

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I think a big thing missing from a lot of these discussions is perspective.

Historical perspective also helps us appreciate just how very very good we have it now!

For example, people might hate upon MFT for being "poor at low light" (ignoring that the GH5S is one of the very best there is!!), when honestly for most of your filmmaking career since 1996 you'd have given your kidney away to have had a camera even as "bad" at lowlight as say the Panasonic G7 is with some fast lenses!

As that is miles and miles better in low light than the camcorders you were using. 

I expect that even in 2030, when we have a GH9 with lowlight performance that is double of what an a7Smk3 can do, and has 16 stops of dynamic range, with 8K 120fps , that we will still have people hating upon MFT because "oh it isn't as good in lowlight as this FF is" or "but it has half a stop less of dynamic range than Fuji does".

No matter what the MFT system does, it won't be "good enough" for them. 

[kye]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

For example, people might hate upon MFT for being "poor at low light" (ignoring that the GH5S is one of the very best there is!!), when honestly for most of your filmmaking career since 1996 you'd have given your kidney away to have had a camera even as "bad" at lowlight as say the Panasonic G7 is with some fast lenses!

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!!

Perspective is great - it's just that we need so much more of it than we think we do.  I like to do my own experiments and actually try things out, and probably the greatest thing I have learned during all my years of experimenting is that half the stuff that "everyone knows is true" is actually complete BS.

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.  Moreso than that even, was that people never questioned it, despite being able to easily prove it within a few minutes of the question being posed.

The volume of things we think we know but are wrong about is only eclipsed by the things that we don't know, and the things we don't even know to ask about.

[Julien416]

8 minutes 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.  

*Aristotle, not Plato 🙂

[anonim]

1 hour ago, kye said:

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!!

There's no reason to imagine - Kenji Mizoguchi alone and above all others is The example to study and study