Panasonic S5 II (What does Panasonic have up their sleeve?)

[Beritar]

19 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

With pixel count being 24MP it does not seem to me it might be the same sensor as used in the Sony A7iii, Lumix S5/1/1H in its different alterations, this time with PDAF like the A7iii. What the all have in common is rolling shutter of around 21ms in FF and 4K 60p for S35 crop only. I like the form factor though and swivel screen and full HDMI. Maybe I will trade my S1 in for it and finally give the great sensor some good running for its money finally. I only used the S1 on three small paid gigs over the last two years, for a short and as C cam for another short. I have no personal connection with this camera. With my Gx85 it´s the opposite. It is dear to my heart. Maybe the S5ii will be a good substitute for my S1.

Just that 22ms rolling shutter is a bit unpleasant compared to filming with the GH5 with its 15ms. 15ms is good enough for me, 22ms sometimes a bit challenging. So with a better rolling shutter the S5ii would be a no brainer for me, if image quality is the same as S1 in theoriy and practical use and abuse as well.

Yes, PDAF, improved colors and rolling shutter are what I want. I'm not in love with the GH6, but the rolling shutter and colors (IMO) are better than on my S1.

[MrSMW]

Only one question remaining for me really and that is recording limit?

I would hope the X model at least does not have the current S5 30 minute 10 bit as that doesn’t work for me…which is the main reason I also have an S1H.

Unlimited and we possibly have a deal…

[John Matthews]

I'm waiting to see what they have in store for M43 before I'd ever jump on a camera like the S5ii or S5iix. I still have hopes for a small M43 camera with PDAF, great colors, solid codec, and decent rolling shutter.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

29 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

I'm waiting to see what they have in store for M43 before I'd ever jump on a camera like the S5ii or S5iix. I still have hopes for a small M43 camera with PDAF, great colors, solid codec, and decent rolling shutter.

I moved from m43 just because I don't see this kind of camera in the future.

In Panny camp, do not see another GX model, maybe a Gxx at last. Looks like they plans for m43 is niche video, GH6 and vlog cameras. The last lenses releases indicate that too.

In Om Digital camp, only probably a O-M10 (but if they do the same move of the O-M5, and package a E-M5 MK III in a E-M10 body, plus mic input and with PDAF, could be a VERY interesting camera). But their future is unclear - and they are betting heavily in the wildflife / adventure crowd.

A GX9 with pdaf, better EVFand mic input would be a perfect camera for me. But I doubt that t will exist.

[John Matthews]

17 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

I moved from m43 just because I don't see this kind of camera in the future.

According to a recent interview, they mentioned a smaller M43 camera is on the horizon. This year, not sure but I’m ready.

17 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

n Panny camp, do not see another GX model, maybe a Gxx at last. Looks like they plans for m43 is niche video, GH6 and vlog cameras. The last lenses releases indicate that too.

Their last lens release was the Leica branded version of the 12-35 f/2.8? Or are you referring to the 9mm (which I now have)?

17 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

A GX9 with pdaf, better EVFand mic input would be a perfect camera for me. But I doubt that t will exist.

I’d also like this camera, but I’m fine without the evf altogether… I want the small size above all.

[PannySVHS]

@John Matthews GH5II in GX80 size please, with it´s absence of digital oversharpening, 10bit 4k60, S16 mode and all the other goodies. Thank you! 🙂

[newfoundmass]

I haven't given up hope on M43, and I still believe in the promise of it, but Panasonic needs to push the boundaries of size/specs. To me a camera the size of the GX85 with the abilities and performance of an upgraded GH5 II would be very tempting. 

The performance gap has narrowed between M43 and full frame, with IBIS being the main advantage at this point. But the added weight of lenses that I've had to deal with, I can't say that I enjoy that one bit. It's why I kept a GH5 and some lenses for my 3 camera kit. I didn't truly appreciate how tiny the 12-35 and 35-100 were until handling L-mount lenses, let alone the tiny lightweight primes! 

The ball really is in Panasonic's (and OMD, I suppose) court. If they offer a compelling option I think it can be successful, but I think it requires a compete re-evaluation of what they think M43 can be. 

[Amazeballs]

3 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

I haven't given up hope on M43, and I still believe in the promise of it, but Panasonic needs to push the boundaries of size/specs. To me a camera the size of the GX85 with the abilities and performance of an upgraded GH5 II would be very tempting. 

The performance gap has narrowed between M43 and full frame, with IBIS being the main advantage at this point. But the added weight of lenses that I've had to deal with, I can't say that I enjoy that one bit. It's why I kept a GH5 and some lenses for my 3 camera kit. I didn't truly appreciate how tiny the 12-35 and 35-100 were until handling L-mount lenses, let alone the tiny lightweight primes! 

The ball really is in Panasonic's (and OMD, I suppose) court. If they offer a compelling option I think it can be successful, but I think it requires a compete re-evaluation of what they think M43 can be. 

I really dont see much of the size advantage for m43 xameras this days. Take a Sony a7c coupled with Samyang tiny primes or Tamron zooms and m43 just cannot compete. Yes they need to minimize the cameras but the lenses.. its physics, they wont be able to do anything about it. And yes, not eveyone is obsessed with shallow DOF anyway. For macro shots its a problem actually. But I think with current advancements in deep learning/neural networks it might be soon achievable to blur the background in post, we can already do it with depth maps in Davinci and if you already have some background separation with a natural bokeh it should be easier to expand on that with AI produced one. 

[John Matthews]

1 hour ago, Amazeballs said:

I really dont see much of the size advantage for m43 xameras this days. Take a Sony a7c coupled with Samyang tiny primes or Tamron zooms and m43 just cannot compete. Yes they need to minimize the cameras but the lenses.. its physics, they wont be able to do anything about it. And yes, not eveyone is obsessed with shallow DOF anyway. For macro shots its a problem actually. But I think with current advancements in deep learning/neural networks it might be soon achievable to blur the background in post, we can already do it with depth maps in Davinci and if you already have some background separation with a natural bokeh it should be easier to expand on that with AI produced one. 

If I were going small FF, I'd rather go Sigma FP than anything Sony. The OM-5/ E-m5 iii would destroy the A7C in IBIS, a much less expensive camera. With the 17m f/1.8, you get similar DOF. Both are 8bit. The Sony can seriously bust out great performance on the DR chart, but I personally don't like that image. The Olympus combo would be lighter too. The real advantage for M43 is with longer lenses, where FF cannot compete in terms of size. Like you say, it's just physics.

[newfoundmass]

3 hours ago, Amazeballs said:

I really dont see much of the size advantage for m43 xameras this days. Take a Sony a7c coupled with Samyang tiny primes or Tamron zooms and m43 just cannot compete. Yes they need to minimize the cameras but the lenses.. its physics, they wont be able to do anything about it. And yes, not eveyone is obsessed with shallow DOF anyway. For macro shots its a problem actually. But I think with current advancements in deep learning/neural networks it might be soon achievable to blur the background in post, we can already do it with depth maps in Davinci and if you already have some background separation with a natural bokeh it should be easier to expand on that with AI produced one. 

A lot of us don't like Sony cameras, and there are no comparably small full frame versions of the 12-35 and 35-100. For the 12-30 it's 305 g vs. 835 g for full frame equivalent. The 35-100 is 357 g vs. 1480 g for the full frame equivalent. Once you get into telephoto primes you're dealing with a significant size difference again compared to their M43 counterparts.

It's always weird when people insist there's no size advantage when I'm both a M43 and full frame shooter. There is such a huge difference, not in the bodies, but the lenses. 

[Amazeballs]

19 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

A lot of us don't like Sony cameras, and there are no comparably small full frame versions of the 12-35 and 35-100. For the 12-30 it's 305 g vs. 835 g for full frame equivalent. The 35-100 is 357 g vs. 1480 g for the full frame equivalent. Once you get into telephoto primes you're dealing with a significant size difference again compared to their M43 counterparts.

It's always weird when people insist there's no size advantage when I'm both a M43 and full frame shooter. There is such a huge difference, not in the bodies, but the lenses. 

I completly understand if you dont like Sony cameras.. but in your examples your went for the biggest and heaviest zooms Sony can offer. That is not fair at all. Lets compare Panasonic zooms and Tamron alright? About telephoto, yes sure, no question here.

Here is an example for you - Tamron 28-200 2.8-5.6 which in m43 equivalent would be 14-100 1.4-2.8 and its only 550 grams. You just cant get anything similar on a MFT system. Olympus 12-100 F4 weights the same. F4 vs 1.4-2.8 pretty substantial right? Or Samyang 24 1.8 - 230 grams (12mm F0.9 on MFT - good luck finding such a lens at this weight envelope and with a working AF). Even Tamron 17-28 F2.8 weight 420 grams - again, nothing similar on MFT. So in terms of weight and size - I dont see any real advantage except telephoto, though I guess Tamron could start making F8 lenses which would be resonalby compact (like Canon did). 

So again, if someones wants DOF than MFT is not that exciting. If you dont need lots of DOF - than MFT could be quite compact at least in term of lenses. And yes I agree - Panasonic should start making more compact cameras again. G85 size is very attractive. GX85 as well. That would be dope. With at least 4k60. I am all for ite. With a new Panaleica 9mm that would be a sweet combo. 

[newfoundmass]

4 hours ago, Amazeballs said:

Here is an example for you - Tamron 28-200 2.8-5.6 which in m43 equivalent would be 14-100 1.4-2.8 and its only 550 grams. You just cant get anything similar on a MFT system. Olympus 12-100 F4 weights the same. F4 vs 1.4-2.8 pretty substantial right? Or Samyang 24 1.8 - 230 grams (12mm F0.9 on MFT - good luck finding such a lens at this weight envelope and with a working AF). Even Tamron 17-28 F2.8 weight 420 grams - again, nothing similar on MFT. So in terms of weight and size - I dont see any real advantage except telephoto, though I guess Tamron could start making F8 lenses which would be resonalby compact (like Canon did). 

You're comparing lenses that don't exist to ones that do. A f2.8 is a f2.8 regardless of whether the lens is M43, APS-C or Full Frame. You can add all the qualifiers you want, it doesn't change the fact that the full frame equivalent to most M43 lenses are substantially heavier AND more expensive. Let me know when you find a 24-70 with a constant f2.8 that is even remotely close to the 12-35 f2.8 in weight. Ditto the 35-100, or the 100-300mm f/4-5.6. 

4 hours ago, Amazeballs said:

So again, if someones wants DOF than MFT is not that exciting.

It's easy to get shallow DOF with M43 except when shooting ultrawide unless the lens has a close focusing distance. It is insane that people discredit an entire system in part because it isn't easy to get enough toneh.

[MrSMW]

Sigma 16-28mm f2.8 = 450g

Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 = 470g

These are my two video workhorses on FF now.

Hoping the rumored but expected 70-200mm f2.8 makes an appearance soon and my triumvirate will be complete.

[Amazeballs]

6 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

You're comparing lenses that don't exist to ones that do.

And that is my point exactly. The lenses that exist on FF all have less weigth, are cheaper and have better ability to blur a background compared to the once that do not exist on MFT (except some cheaply made Chinese manual 0.95 primes).  I am comparing different systems so for the sake of a porper comparison I need to make a confersion to make things clear. 

6 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

A f2.8 is a f2.8 regardless of whether the lens is M43, APS-C or Full Frame

No they are not. Not in terms of DOF. And lowlight is debatable as well as bigger sensors usually have better lowlight anyway. For me 12-35 F2.8 zoom is not very usable precisely for reason of it having a F5.6 equivalent aperture to FF. And that is just not enough to separate a subject from the background for me personally. So you need either use primes or very expensive and quite heavy Panaleica 10-25 1.7 or 25-50 1.7. And yet they still only produce equivalent DOF to F3.5 on FF. Those are the zooms we should be comparing Tamron and Sigma offerings to. Lets take a closer look:

Panasonic Leica 10-25 F1.7 690 grams, 1800$

Panasonic Leica 25-50 F1.7 650 grams, 1800$

Tamron 28-75 F2.8 540 grams, 900$

Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 470 grams 780$

Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 450 grams 900$

Tamron 17-28 F2.8 420 grams 800$

Tamron 20-40 F2.8 365 grams 700$

Albeit their focal length are not identical obviosly, but at least their appertures are a bit closer when we consider the crop factor. Seems to me thar FF lenses are way cheaper, ligther and have better reach. Oops. 

6 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Let me know when you find a 24-70 with a constant f2.8 that is even remotely close to the 12-35 f2.8 in weight.

Here you go. Sony FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS. Just 300 grams and only 400$. And it translates to 14-35mm F1.7-2.8 so not exactly the same but very close. And its 400$ vs 700$ for Panasonic. 

[Amazeballs]

Also Panasonic themselfs make a very appealing 20-60 F3.5-5.6 which is 350 grams/500$

[John Matthews]

I really don't get the reason why people who have FF cameras are so disturbed by the mere existence of M43. Can't we let M43 be M43 and FF be FF- it's all good. If you like the image format and size, great! Why does one have to be inferior? They both do things that the other cannot do. I think there's the inconvenience. It would seem that people want simplified answers- bigger sensor, more megapixels, high bit rate, etc. I'm not saying those thing don't matter, but there are other things too. Cameras have ergonomics, exposure tools, ports, EVF's, image fidelity, etc. None of that is "Full-Frame" or "xx megapixels" or "intra-frame compression". So many cameras produce great images these days, even good enough for Hollywood. After, it becomes the best tool for the job and needs.

[Amazeballs]

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

I really don't get the reason why people who have FF cameras are so disturbed by the mere existence of M43. Can't we let M43 be M43 and FF be FF- it's all good. If you like the image format and size, great! Why does one have to be inferior? They both do things that the other cannot do. I think there's the inconvenience. It would seem that people want simplified answers- bigger sensor, more megapixels, high bit rate, etc. I'm not saying those thing don't matter, but there are other things too. Cameras have ergonomics, exposure tools, ports, EVF's, image fidelity, etc. None of that is "Full-Frame" or "xx megapixels" or "intra-frame compression". So many cameras produce great images these days, even good enough for Hollywood. After, it becomes the best tool for the job and needs.

Dude you are making this "disturbed by the mere existence of M43" on the spot. I am definitely not disturbed by it in any way. My previous camera was GH5 for a long time and G85 berfore that. I actually like the system and would like it to be more relevant. But I also want to point out that the size advantage of m43 people are talking about is not really there in many cases especially if you want shallow DOF and FF lenses are actually more compact in many ways and even cheaper. Thats all I am saying. 

[John Matthews]

14 minutes ago, Amazeballs said:

Dude you are making this "disturbed by the mere existence of M43" on the spot. I am definitely not disturbed by it in any way. My previous camera was GH5 for a long time and G85 berfore that. I actually like the system and would like it to be more relevant. But I also want to point out that the size advantage of m43 people are talking about is not really there in many cases especially if you want shallow DOF and FF lenses are actually more compact in many ways and even cheaper. Thats all I am saying. 

Ok. Can you cover 16mm-ish to 600mm (FF equiv.) in under 1kg with ANY single FF mount kit? How about 2kg? 3kg? That's what I'm saying. There are lenses in M43 with simply with no equivalency in FF in terms of weight. When you do find a lens, you won't find the other lens you need in the same mount.

[Amazeballs]

17 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

Ok. Can you cover 16mm-ish to 600mm (FF equiv.) in under 1kg with ANY single FF mount kit? How about 2kg? 3kg? That's what I'm saying. There are lenses in M43 with simply with no equivalency in FF in terms of weight. When you do find a lens, you won't find the other lens you need in the same mount.

Sounds like a dick measuring contest. Have you actually read any of the arguments I was making in this thread? My comments on telephoto advantages of M43? My list of compared lenses? I gues you did not or it slipped your attention somehow. I think I am gonna end this discussion right here. 

[John Matthews]

36 minutes ago, Amazeballs said:

Sounds like a dick measuring contest. Have you actually read any of the arguments I was making in this thread? My comments on telephoto advantages of M43? My list of compared lenses? I gues you did not or it slipped your attention somehow. I think I am gonna end this discussion right here. 

Good. Back to "Panasonic and what they have up their sleeve." ... not M43 vs. FF. Thank you!