GH4 or LX100 - 24 hours to decide

[TJ Ingrassia]

B&H is closed for the next 24 hours, so I've got 24 hours to make an important decision. I need a better b-camera for my C100, which I'm totally in love with, and I'm torn between the LX100 and GH4. I like the idea of LX100 portability and built-in lens, plus the fact that the video quality is *very* close to the GH4, and the difference is probably irrelevant for the work I do. 

However, the GH4 has: much better battery life, the ability for me to use my Canon glass (with an adapter), higher bit-rates for 1080, Cine-like profiles, and 96fps. But the GH4 is significantly more money, just for body only.

If I went with the GH4 I'd probably get the Lumix G 14mm f/2.5, so the total package would be close to $2,000, vs the $1,000 package for the LX100. And keep in mind that this is intended mainly as a b-camera. 

Do I keep it light with the LX100, or future-proof myself with the GH4?

[Turboguard]

I shot an outdoor night scene with both my LX100 (4k) and my BMPCC and can tell you that the LX100 is unusable in low light for any kind of semi professional work. It completely ruins the blacks in frame. So I don't know about being "equal" to GH4. Never used a GH4 so can't really say but I believe it does a much better job.

[Cinegain]

If you'll use it for productions, then I feel it's hard to beat the GH4's versatility and features, like you said... especially if you might want to throw some glass on there or certain looks and just in general getting a bit more videofriendly experience out of it.

I'd go for the LX100 if you also have use for it as an A-camera... using a camera where otherwise you would have non (well, maybe a GoPro or a smartphone) and care about stills photography. If you just need something for B-roll and the reason for considering the LX100 is not the size, but just having something for B-roll, then I'd say the GH4 is the powertool you'll want having around. Might also be a little easier to match it to the C100.

But that being said... the LX100 is a pretty powerful tool as well. Here's a sweet little clip I came across on 43rumors the other day... they shared it for good reasons, it's great.

 

[DigitalEd]

What about the NX1 it has been posted to be a little better in low light then the GH4 and shoots 4k in camera. I just shot a lot with it today, Loading files.

[maxotics]

I don't have any experience with the C100.  I don't do this professionally either.  So this REALLY is a 2-cent opinion.  If you shoot a lot of people you might want to consider a 5D3 shooting H.264 or ML RAW, to match the C100, or get a BMPCC.  I just got a GH4 a few days ago.  The crispness of the image is astounding.  But I still can't get really nice skin tones.  I love the 4K photo mode.  It's a great camera, easy to use, lots of features, but the image is, I hate to say it, very plastic-y.   Not a bad thing.  Great if you like high contrast shooting and very sharp images.  But something about the colors makes people look like mannequins.  I'm still trying to figure it out.  Still trying to find some sample videos on the Internet where someone else has my taste.  I would borrow or rent one first.  But if I had to choose I'd go with the LX100 because the lens is awesome and it would still make a good personal camera for bumming around.

[fuzzynormal]

I just got a GH4 a few days ago... the image is, I hate to say it, very plastic-y.    

​What lens are you using?

[Inazuma]

Maxotics, the plasticky skin tones might be because it oversaturated them a bit. Try my skin corrector or colour balancer LUT.

TurboGuard, you say the lx100 ruined the blacks. Did you have iDynamic set on anything other than None? How about the shadow curve?

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

The LX100 costs/weights 1/3 of a GH4 plus adapters. If your main cam is a C100, maybe to have something more pocketable is a nice option?

[Guest]

A B-Cam for the C100? GH4.

I think they look remarkably close. Though I prefer the C100's image the GH4 actually has more options (4K, 10-bit out, etc) and will be a longer term investment for you than the LX100. The C100 has better dynamic range, but with Cine D (possibly V-Log and even RAW in the future?) on the GH4 you can get very close. Not possible with the LX100 AFAIK. Pros are matching GH4 with C100 with success (see video below). When you have more money you can get a Speed Booster and have a very similar FOV to the C100. With a Ninja Star you can have 10-bit 422 1080p which can be graded very close indeed to the C100 (GH4 internal image lacks the colour "punch" of the C100, but 10-bit fixes this). But the internal 4K GH4 image cut's in fine with C100 footage for most stuff IMHO. No doubt the LX100 would match pretty well too, so if you like the idea of a 'shot grabber' it's hard to beat. But you'll lack the ability to  match the footage really close and loose a huge number of professional options. Don't forget that the GH4 also offers things the C100 doesn't (pro video features in a small body with good EVF, 4K and 10-bit out). Obviously only you can decide because you know what it will be used for, but if you can afford the GH4 it definitely justifies the higher price. It's amazingly feature-packed and future-proof.

Oh and the LX100 has no mic jack so it can't be used alone.

 

[noa]

TurboGuard, you say the lx100 ruined the blacks. Did you have iDynamic set on anything other than None? How about the shadow curve?

​From what I have seen reported by other users the lx100 has a cleaner image at 3200 iso compared to the Gh4 and the IQ is equally good, I did find it surprising when it's stated that this camera is "unusable in low light for any kind of semi professional work". That also would apply then for the GH4. Just like the GH4 the LX100 has picture settings that when used wrong can have a effect on the image, this little camera can easily be used in a semi-professional environment as long as you don't have clients that would object against the size of the camera. Low light is also no issue unless you want to shoot at moonlight but for that there are other camera's.

[TJ Ingrassia]

What about the NX1 it has been posted to be a little better in low light then the GH4 and shoots 4k in camera. I just shot a lot with it today, Loading files.

​I researched the NX1 and am very interested in it's capabilities, but the H.265 workflow seems too impractical right now, at least for the work I'm doing. 

[Cinegain]

Well, if you won't limit your options to the GH4 or LX100, you can always take a look at the other Pana's: the G6 and GX7. Nikon, with their D5300 or Sony's A5100 or A6000. Might even consider a BMPCC altogether?

[maxotics]

@fuzzynormal I'm shooting with an Olympus 17mm/1.8 prime.

@Inazuma Thanks! Looking forward to trying your fixes!  Will try today.  TJ, what I've discovered is 4K GH4 files also have their workflow issues.  For example, they don't import correctly into Vegas 12 Pro.  It adds 3x the length of the last frame in the video portion.  I need to run a script to fix.  You will be tempted to shoot straight 1080, and then you have to decide if the smidgen on extra IQ is worth the 4K downscale workflow (and if that's the case, save some money and get a GX7/GM1).  Of course, you may have NO PROBLEMS whatsoever.  I haven't seen any rigorous tests, but there is some indication the NX1 may be better for skin tones ultimately (and other stuff).  Still, would wait a year on that camera line for all kinds of reasons.   Unless I was shooting documentaries, none of the Pannys touch any RAW source, in IQ, full-stop. (the BMPCC is an incredible camera)  Might be helpful if we know what kind of stuff you shoot.  I could raise my opinion to 3-cents   Again, not bashing the GH4.  If I wanted slow-mo I'd be in heaven.  Maybe after Inazuma's techniques I'll swing all the way around!

Here's a video I watched last night (BMPCC with 10mm).  I hope I don't get flamed, but I can't see a non-RAW camera getting this kind of nuance.  Even though he graded a lot of contrast (like H.264), the RAW preserved the skin tones and lighting.  My conclusion: if you shoot a lot of people, think hard.  If you don't, the GH4 can do a lot of stuff as Matt says.

 

[TJ Ingrassia]

Well, if you won't limit your options to the GH4 or LX100, you can always take a look at the other Pana's: the G6 and GX7. Nikon, with their D5300 or Sony's A5100 or A6000. Might even consider a BMPCC altogether?

​I've looked at other 1080 cameras, but I feel like I need a 4K camera to be able to match the resolution of the C100.

[TJ Ingrassia]

 Might be helpful if we know what kind of stuff you shoot.  I could raise my opinion to 3-cents 

 You can check out some of my work on my site, www.tjingrassia.com, although keep in mind I don't shoot weddings anymore, thank goodness. 

I do a lot of work for a PR agency, shooting interviews, web promos, YouTube ads, etc... I also do random freelance work, but a LOT of my stuff seems to include interviews and humans in general. 

Seems like the skin tone issue hasn't been problematic in footage I've seen with either the GH4 or LX100, but I'll look into it more. 

[Cinegain]

@Inazuma Thanks! Looking forward to trying your fixes!  Will try today.  TJ, what I've discovered is 4K GH4 files also have their workflow issues.  For example, they don't import correctly into Vegas 12 Pro.  It adds 3x the length of the last frame in the video portion.  I need to run a script to fix.  You will be tempted to shoot straight 1080, and then you have to decide if the smidgen on extra IQ is worth the 4K downscale workflow (and if that's the case, save some money and get a GX7/GM1).  Of course, you may have NO PROBLEMS whatsoever.  I haven't seen any rigorous tests, but there is some indication the NX1 may be better for skin tones ultimately (and other stuff).  Still, would wait a year on that camera line for all kinds of reasons.   Unless I was shooting documentaries, none of the Pannys touch any RAW source, in IQ, full-stop. (the BMPCC is an incredible camera)  Might be helpful if we know what kind of stuff you shoot.  I could raise my opinion to 3-cents   Again, not bashing the GH4.  If I wanted slow-mo I'd be in heaven.  Maybe after Inazuma's techniques I'll swing all the way around!

Max, have you used it exclusively in the Cinelike D profile? Maybe you should give Natural (or even Cinelike V) a try. They might be a little closer to what you're after and a bit easier to correct.

[maxotics]

 Seems like the skin tone issue hasn't been problematic in footage I've seen with either the GH4 or LX100, but I'll look into it more. 

It all depends on what look you're going after, right?  The GH4 delivers a super nice image and I'm pretty sure no one will ever say "skin tones look bad". I think the GH4 would get very close to the Cancer Awareness video you did.  You have good lighting and you're shooting/grading slightly over-exposed and slightly desaturated (seems to me).  If you're looking for sharpness to match the C100 then the GH4 won't disappoint.  That I know for sure   But the video of the woman on the rocks near the water.  The GH4 may struggle a bit, not in sharpness, but in feel.

@Cinegain, I've been trying all the profiles.  I have Andrew's C1, C2, C3 loaded on the camera.  I like C1 the best.  There is still something about the image that seems slightly jaundiced in it.  Faces are lacking in the red channel somehow (I'm no colorist).  I looked at Inazuma's stuff, and though he's seems to have improved it a bit, I still feel I see it.  The other problem with the fancy GH4 profiles I'm noticing (and again, I'm just a duffer) is that you can easily make things worse.  Double edged sword. Cine-D is nice, but it leads to a common problem in a lot of Panny footage I see.  Subconsciously I believe many shooters lower the contrast (no real blacks), wash out the image to get ride of the jaundiced look by sort of jaundicing up (graying) the whole image.  With "Canon" colors people let the blacks go black because the reds pop. 

I've been shooting many clips and will post them to Vimeo.  So far I've done a bunch of stuff on the GH4.  I lent out my BMPCC, so when I get that back, I'll shoot same subject/location with that--and the Sony cameras.

For interviews you might also consider the Canon 70D.  Nice autofocus (though yes, not as sharp)!

 

[DigitalEd]

The work flow is not that bad for the NX1 not much longer then watching the video back.

Here is a few stills grabbed from the NX1 4K and lite edited in PS.

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t31.0-8/10644292_10202719944874195_7504860861534278809_o.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t31.0-8/10854216_10202719946634239_3108042180030163525_o.jpg

 

[TJ Ingrassia]

I appreciate all the insight from everyone. In the end the I decided to go with the.....GH4! While the LX100 would have served my family needs well (for the most part), I think the GH4 will be a better long-term investment. Plus it really is designed for more intensive video use, where the LX100 is not necessarily optimized for that (i.e. shorter battery life, potential heat issue for extended shooting, short clip length, etc...). I really like the idea that the GH4, with it's longer battery life and "unlimited" video recording length, can basically be setup and forgotten about, say during a long interview or conference. That makes it much more "C100-like" in terms of video usability. Plus with the "dumb adapter" I bought, I can throw on any of my Canon glass. I bought the cheap Panasonic 14-42mm f/3.5 -5.6, mostly to have something with useable OIS. I'll start saving my pennies again and eventually graduate to the Speedbooster, if it becomes necessary. 

I also bought the EOSHD GH4 Shooter's Guide and look forward to learning all about my new GH4. 

Thanks again!

***EDIT - I forget to add 96fps, too!

[Cinegain]

Great choice! Enjoy!

Don't forget, you don't neccessarily need an expensive speedbooster. You will do just fine getting a RJ, Zhongyi/ZY Optics or Fotodiox lens turbo/focal reducer.