The GH5's auto focus is underrated

[webrunner5]

 It's not unusable it's undependable, big difference. 

[newfoundmass]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

 It's not unusable it's undependable, big difference. 

It's really not. Once you figure out how it works, and work towards its strength, it's very reliable.

Do I wish that it was Canon or Sony level? Sure, especially given my belief that not moving towards PDAF has hurt the format's image with consumers who think they NEED it and have put it at risk, but it's not that important to me. I'll be filming pro-wrestling matches with it tomorrow.

[ac6000cw]

13 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

It's really not. Once you figure out how it works, and work towards its strength, it's very reliable.

I agree (based on experience with my G9).

While I'm sure the best from Sony and Canon would handle some use cases better, it works perfectly well for my use cases (and better than my PDAF-equiped E-M1 ii in some situations, like wildlife video with long lenses).

[herein2020]

16 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

 It's not unusable it's undependable, big difference. 

My vote is with @webrunner5 but for me a product can reach a point to where it is so undependable that it is actually unusable. Pulsing is impossible to get rid of in post and it was also impossible to predict ahead of time when it would happen so to me that's the definition of both unusable and undependable.

TBH IMO most AF is somewhat undependable, but the GH5's and S5's CAF were at the point to where for me they were so undependable that they did fall into the unusable category. My C70 on the other hand its AF is also somewhat undependable (just like every other CAF system that I've tried), but it is predictable enough for me to still consider it usable.

[Mark Romero 2]

The thing that's painful is that the AF is so nice on my Panasonic S1 and S5 is SO NICE... when it actually works!!!

The fact that the lenses like the 24-105 f/4 have minimal focus breathing and pseudo-parfocal ability* just makes it even more frustrating.

I don't use / need autofocus that much currently, but would like the ability to rely on it in the future for more run-and-gun shooting.

[webrunner5]

Therein lies the quandary. These smaller cameras are sort of meant to be a Run N Gun solution. And that is the time when you need super-duper AF. For photos I think they work fairly well, probably not for sports, but for video that is a tough one to overcome AF wise.

Face and Eye detection seems to work pretty well in the latest cameras, but not much good for most action video wise. It sort of sucks that the GH5 is so damn good image stabilization wise that it is let down by spotty AF results. And I am sure the stabilization is even better on the GH6. I guess we will start to find out on real life usage how well AF really has been improved in the coming months.

[MrSMW]

I’m on that fence with the useable one side and dependable on the other…

Shot my first 12+ hour wedding of the season with 3x Lumix cameras yesterday and for stills, 9/10.

For general video use, 7 or maybe even an 8/10.

It’s just the forward motion tracking where it gets sketchy. Sometimes it will (mostly) but more often it won’t. 2/10.

[Dutchfilms]

Till this day I still believe autofocus can not be relied on for video purposes. If anything, for video, if I need to be absolutely sure everything will be in focus I'd rather use wide angle lenses. Better be safe than to be sorry!