Is GH4 worth it if I won't be using 4k?

[James J. Yoo]

Hi all,

 

I'm looking to get more into video- some short films, some video work- nothing serious, and I don't need the absolute best quality. I just want a decent bitrate, minimal rolling shutter/moire/etc., decent low light performance, etc.- something that's good enough where the quality of my videos are distracting because they're bad enough to be noticeable to the average person.

 

The GH4 seems like a huge step up in video compared to the GH3, but It's like twice as expensive, and I can't see myself using 4K (I'm assuming that would require a more powerful computer to edit, hard drives to deal with the extra data, better memory cards- all things I'm not willing to invest in at this point).

 

I will probably stick with 1080p, maybe one step up, but definitely not 4k.

 

Given, I'm weighing my options between the GH4, GH3, and GX7 (which I read is actually better than the GH3 for video). I was considering the Blackmagic pocket, but there's too many quirks for me to want to deal with. I would jump on the OMD EM5, but the quality isn't there.

 

I hate to buy a camera during these years of seemingly the most growth the camera industry will see for video, but this summer I must upgrade.

 

Any advice/words or other models I haven't mentioned? Thank you for the help

[andy lee]

get a Panasonic G6 - superb camera if you dont need 4K

[Perplex]

I think the 96fps vfr is a great, great addition to its capabilities for slow mo.  

[xenogears]

I use the GH3 as B cam for the FS100, even is the only cam i take with me to certain jobs, right now i'm saving for the GH4, but the GH3 still a great camera, the GX7 as i read in many sites it suppose to have:

-A cleaner and sharper image than the GH3.

-Peaking.

-Better EVF.

The GH3 have over the GX7:

-Live hdmi output

-Audio input.

-Earphone jack.

-Weather resistant and rigged body.

-Bigger battery and battery grip option

-Swivel screen.

In my case the GH3 is a more complete package because have options that are very important to me, allowing me to use in a more variety of job assignments.

Is no a matter of what camera is best, is about of what camera adapt best to your own requirements.

[Inazuma]

I have read from a few people (including Andrew - I THINK) that it's kind of pointless to get the GH4 if you don't want 4k. Also there was a reviewer that posted here a couple weeks ago saying that the GH4 image quality is just marginally better than the GH3.

[sandro]

So which is better for 1080p GX7 or G6? In terms on quality and features (I'm talking about video only). The swivel screen is a must for me now!

[Bob Wall]

A6000 would be a good bet, too, very affordable and good quality.

[noone]

So which is better for 1080p GX7 or G6? In terms on quality and features (I'm talking about video only). The swivel screen is a must for me now!

I would think the GX7 quality may be a bit better but the G6 might be the better choice.

 

I like my GX7 but it is a bit limited (and I am not good enough to overcome the limitations as so far video is something I am trying to learn).   No audio input, ISO maxes at 3200.   It has peaking but it is far from the best (often it is barely useable and Sony peaking is far better, at least to me).

[Inazuma]

I have the gx7 and love it. Apparently it has slightly better image quality than the g6. But if I had to choose again I would probably get the g6 or the gh3 due to the more substantial grip.

The peaking works fine for me. I don't know whether or not it differs between the gx7 and g6. But when I tested the a6000, I found it to work slightly less well.

[sandro]

A6000 would be a good bet, too, very affordable and good quality.

 

Doesn't look as sharp as the Panasonic's 1080p to me.

[aldolega]

IMO the 4K on the GH4 isnt really about delivering/finishing in 4K. It's about getting really really good 1080p. The 100Mbps bitrate isn't really that large and it seems like any decent computer that's less than two years old or so will be able to handle editing and playback. The price difference between the GH4 and the other cams is indeed pretty large though; it's up to you to evaluate your gear situation and see if that money would be better spent on lenses, support, lighting, etc.

[RRRoger]

I only had the GH3 a few days after I got my GH4 to compare head to head because it sold so fast for half the price.

But I must say the GH4 is better in everyway and well worth the difference to me.

 

I did not buy the GH4 for 4k but much better stills in low light and fast action.

DFD (Depth from Defocus) technology not only works but is marketing Genious as it requires Lumis lens.

I shoot Video at 1080 P60 and that is improved enough to also justify purchase.

[jonpais]

I have read from a few people (including Andrew - I THINK) that it's kind of pointless to get the GH4 if you don't want 4k. Also there was a reviewer that posted here a couple weeks ago saying that the GH4 image quality is just marginally better than the GH3.

@Inazuma I don't think this is quite accurate. There is EVERY reason to shoot with a GH4, even if you only ever plan to deliver in 1080p. Just watch Dave Dugdale's outstanding

[johnnymossville]

4K when edited in 1080 has so many uses I don't think I could go back.  Here's an example of a video I did last week. Shot and edited in one day. No color correction, to be viewed at the wedding.  There are many shots where I cropped into a 4k image and it gave me a two camera shoot look without doing a darn thing.     The chase around the tree scene for example here.

 

[AaronChicago]

IMO the 4K on the GH4 isnt really about delivering/finishing in 4K. It's about getting really really good 1080p. The 100Mbps bitrate isn't really that large and it seems like any decent computer that's less than two years old or so will be able to handle editing and playback. The price difference between the GH4 and the other cams is indeed pretty large though; it's up to you to evaluate your gear situation and see if that money would be better spent on lenses, support, lighting, etc.

 

This.

[Michael1]

4K when edited in 1080 has so many uses I don't think I could go back.  Here's an example of a video I did last week. Shot and edited in one day. No color correction, to be viewed at the wedding.  There are many shots where I cropped into a 4k image and it gave me a two camera shoot look without doing a darn thing.     The chase around the tree scene for example here.

 

Very nice video!  Well done.

 

Michael

[Damphousse]

Hi all,

 

I'm looking to get more into video- some short films, some video work- nothing serious, and I don't need the absolute best quality. I just want a decent bitrate, minimal rolling shutter/moire/etc., decent low light performance, etc.- something that's good enough where the quality of my videos are distracting because they're bad enough to be noticeable to the average person.

 

Even the GH4 has rolling shutter.  I don't think unless you get into global shutter (BMPCC) or a Canon C300 you are going to see dramatic reductions in rolling shutter from G3 levels.  Rolling shutter is kind of the final frontier.

 

 

 

 

I hate to buy a camera during these years of seemingly the most growth the camera industry will see for video, but this summer I must upgrade.

 

 

 

Yeah it is a tough time.  I like to wait for new models to come down in price or at least get a used or refurb camera to take the sting out of depreciation.  The problem is you have two interesting cameras coming out soon.  The Panasonic LX8 and the Panasonic FZ1000.  Both of these cameras have a 1" sensor and have built in lenses and 4K for $900.  The Panasonic FZ1000 has been announced and the LX8 is still in rumor land but should be announced soon.  The LX8 is even rumored to have a built in neutral density filter.  The nice thing about those cameras is you buy the camera and a memory stick and you are off shooting.  No other lenses or accesories to buy.

[Vesku]

Compared to GH3 in 1080P:

 

-Smoother colors and gradations, less banding, much better color adjustment possibilities with better color accuracy when making big adjustments.

-Much better dynamic range due to new profiles. More natural tones when digging sensor to extremes.

-a bit better video overal resolution and feel. Finer noise and less macroblocking.

-Much less rolling shutter

-Automatic exposure is more clever

-AF is more accurate and reliable

-EVF and LCD colors are reliable anf faithful to final result. You can judge colors when shooting.

-PAL/NTSC

-low light capability with auto iso is much much better

[hmcindie]

Compared to GH3 in 1080P:

 

-Much less rolling shutter

 

This is not really true. In 4k mode the GH4 has worse rolling shutter. But what happens in 1080p mode? If it's faster then there has to be line skipping.

[Vesku]

This is not really true. In 4k mode the GH4 has worse rolling shutter. But what happens in 1080p mode? If it's faster then there has to be line skipping.

Yes GH3 and GH4 must skip something when downsampling the sensor. Is it vertical or horizontal resolution or color depth or mixture of those I dont know. GH4 1080P resolution is not perfect or normal looking downsample. There is some failing. End result is though that GH4 seems to do it better with more accurate colors and slightly better resolution. Rolling shutter is also much less noticeable.