Panasonic GH7

[IronFilm]

  

19 hours ago, kye said:

Please look through this thread and show me where this was stated.

Oh I dunno, lots of places: 

11 hours ago, mercer said:

But there's still a medium format look.

 

[John Matthews]

9 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I agree! It's quite frustrating. 

Why can't people just accept each format for what it is?? 

Heck, if we saw a BMPCC 2.0 released which has an even smaller sensor than the GH7, I would still be excited about that. 

And we shouldn't be hating upon it specifically for the S16 sized sensor. 

Sure, we might complain about the lack of modern day affordable S16 cine lenses! That we could use on the BMPCC 2.0

But that's a totally different question to complaining about the S16 sensor size itself. 

Hell, I get excited about my camcorder (VX-980)- and that's even smaller than 1", AND it crops in on that too. The one thing it does that my GX800 and S5ii don't do is basically remove wrinkles on faces (without doing some beauty effect). For older people, they would much rather look at a "smoothed" effect. Although it gives a detailed image, it doesn't do it with such confidence as the GX800 and S5ii do. Also, if I hand my wife my S5ii, she's immediately overwhelmed (and I completely set it up for her). If I hand her the VS-980, she knows exactly what to do.

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

  

Oh I dunno, lots of places: 

 

Magical "medium format look" is different of medium format look...

I'd rather call it larger sensor size look.

I actually don't like anything closer of the definition of being categorized as format either. I believe that a small part of @eatstoomuchjam's beef against this manner of speaking is this.

I haven't read anyone to call it magical anyway.

That said, yet someone praising that route can still be in love for a platform like MTF is ;- )

[Emanuel]

*MFT (sorry for the dyslexia of my senseless word corrector : D)

[zlfan]

m43 or 43 is a cool format actually. ff camera bodies can be very small now, but the lenses are not so easy to scale down. m43 lenses are really cute. also, in the photo world, m43 especially Olympus cameras and lenses are used for birding or other wild life niches, which makes sense very much. 

43 lenses are not so smaller than the ff or apsc lenses, but their iqs are great, especially Olympus shg lenses, very very beautiful iq. 

[eatstoomuchjam]

11 hours ago, zlfan said:

I have looked adapting DSLR or mirrorless on lf before. the main thing is you have to have the latest rodenstock lenses, which is about $5000 for one. kind of defeating the purpose using lf with its ample vintage lenses. 

What are you talking about?  As long as you can hit infinity focus with the extra rear extension of the camera adapter + distance to camera sensor, you can use any lens that you want.  I've taken a bunch of panoramas with the GFX 100 mounted on the back of a speed graphic with an Aero Ektar.  After stitching, one gets an image which is around 44x120mm (around 400 megapixels in theory, but the AE is definitely not resolving that from edge to edge).  I could use a number of my other lenses too - the AE is about 178mm and is nearly the shortest lens that one can use on a speed graphic with a GFX->Graflok adapter (and good luck with a lot of movements) - but a 250mm or so lens would be almost ideal.

With a Crown Graphic or any other LF camera without a built-in focal plane shutter, I'd imagine you could get down to 135mm or so and still be able to focus a GFX to infinity.

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

51 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Magical "medium format look" is different of medium format look...

I'd rather call it larger sensor size look.

I actually don't like anything closer of the definition of being categorized as format either. I believe that a small part of @eatstoomuchjam's beef against this manner of speaking is this.

I haven't read anyone to call it magical anyway.

I've already said that "magical" is my own summarization of how people seem to describe their imagined "medium format look" since requests for any sort of functional definition seem to result in things that are demonstrably false or claims that the look is ineffable.

So this special term which defies all definition, but is to be considered useful in discussion must be pure magic.

[Emanuel]

11 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

I've already said that "magical" is my own summarization of how people seem to describe their imagined "medium format look" since requests for any sort of functional definition seem to result in things that are demonstrably false or claims that the look is ineffable.

So this special term which defies all definition, but is to be considered useful in discussion must be pure magic.

I think it's more a case of misunderstanding instead... No one called it magical, someone has decided to coin the expression based on those "feelings" ; ) a few other readers read the interpretation of that but not what people exactly said on topic. At a certain point it is not what people have written but what has been written those people said : D

One side doesn't like the name the other side has called to it.

And claims any introduction a large sensor size may bring cannot be called a look many identify as a specific one of its own.

All that could easily be possible to be refuted if under same variables nothing would be added to couple a larger sensor size when it is actually not.

:- )

[PannySVHS]

We shall let go and let people have their opinions and estimations.

Back to GH7, Prores Raw Cine 4K is slightly smaller than S16. Dedicated S16, 16 and 2/3 modes  would be nice for the future, with full widths and various ratios.

Footage so far looks fine regarding textures but otherwise rather dull.

[zlfan]

49 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

What are you talking about?  As long as you can hit infinity focus with the extra rear extension of the camera adapter + distance to camera sensor, you can use any lens that you want.  I've taken a bunch of panoramas with the GFX 100 mounted on the back of a speed graphic with an Aero Ektar.  After stitching, one gets an image which is around 44x120mm (around 400 megapixels in theory, but the AE is definitely not resolving that from edge to edge).  I could use a number of my other lenses too - the AE is about 178mm and is nearly the shortest lens that one can use on a speed graphic with a GFX->Graflok adapter (and good luck with a lot of movements) - but a 250mm or so lens would be almost ideal.

With a Crown Graphic or any other LF camera without a built-in focal plane shutter, I'd imagine you could get down to 135mm or so and still be able to focus a GFX to infinity.

 

when you do stitching with gfx or other digital cams, the sensor, especially the stitched gfx 100 mp sensors out resolve the vintage lf lenses by many miles, only the latest rodenstock lf lenses have enough resolution to match. but they are expensive. 

[Davide DB]

Gentlemen,

I think we can all agree that at least the FF aesthetic exists and it is all shallow DOF. Youtube told me so!

 

 

[Ninpo33]

On 6/13/2024 at 9:12 AM, PPNS said:

Also speedboosters suck

No issue with the term, "Medium Format Look" but this...? This is just a dumb statement. Would love to know where you developed this ignorant and misguided opinion.

[Beritar]

18 hours ago, John Matthews said:

I just had a look at my GH6 footage that I took before selling it and I must say it looked great! It has a super organic feel to it and loved the colors in just Standard profile. I also tried shooting in Vlog quite a bit, but Standard really did it for me. I took it to the French Alps last summer and it performed so well for photos and video. Sure, it didn't have PDAF, but when you learn to work around it, it's really no big deal. Honestly, I hope to have a similar opportunity with the GH7.

Currently, I use the GH5, GH6 (two bodies), G9II and most Panasonic L mount cameras.
I love the colors of the GH6 as well, for me no other Panasonic m43 or L cameras have better colors. The skintones are perfect and even profiles like standard, portrait or cine-V are great. I was pretty disappointed when I bought the G9II because I think the colors are really not as nice.
And sadly, it seems the GH7 has more or less the same colors of the G9II, which is a disappointement.

But, I don't agree about the GH6 looking super organic. For me it often looks digitally soft, even more in 4k and C4K. In addition to the Panasonic IDP (Intelligent detail processing, which simulate an OLPF reducing moiré, smoothing fine details and even reducing noise in low light), the main reason is an out of focus issue making the image very soft when using continuous AF (AF-C) below 48 fps with 4K, C4K and 5,7K.
90% of the lenses I own are affected including the 12-60mm, 10-25mm, 25-50mm, 100-400mm, 25/45mm Olympus Pro etc. A few lenses like the 25mm f1.4II has not the issue.
Most of the time, this feeling of organic image is just the effect of the out of focus bug, it's like making a blur filter on the image. It is not what I think of an organic look.
What is really surprising is Panasonic never adressed this issue, also before pressing the recording button the image is prefectly in focus, but as soon as you press the button, the camera tries to re-focus and literraly lost the point of focus. If you don't crop inside your video to see how bad this out of focus bug is, you can see it even while recording in assingning a button to zoom inside the video on your screen. On the GH6, G9II and S5II, you can use this function while recording, but this can lead to some bugs. On the GH6 while using Prores, the colors can be badly altered about every five times. Or when plugin the camera to a computer just after recording, the camera can freeze, this last bug happens to my GH6, G9II and S5II, shutting down the camera before plugin it to a computer prevents the freeze).

Exemple of the out of focus AF-C :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HdV8UQdgNA

As you can see AF-S on the GH6 has no issue and when using it, the focus is perfect and the level of details and digital sharpening is the same than the G9II, as opposed to some Panasonic ambassadors on Youtube saying the GH6 is softer and the G9II sharper.

I didn't speak about Open Gate, because the issue is different, there is not the out of focus bug, but again the GH6 is very disappointing, like you can see in this video, the GH6 is much slower than the GH5 and pulses more :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h8f9qCrs3c

However, when using AF-C in 5,7K 48 or 60fps, image is very close to the GH5 in 4K. The details are a bit rougher than on the GH5 (more digital sharpness) and the IDP is still going on, but the image is not soft, there are plenty of details and they are less rough than in 4K or C4K.
The best mode is Prores 5,7K because it use almost zero NR, however the IDP is still going on and sometimes smooths textures in low light. Also it is only available up to 30fps, so with most lenses, AF-S is required to prevent the AF issue.

The G9II has solved much of the GH6 AF issue, it also has improved IBIS to the point than even 5,7K is closer than the IBIS of the GH6 and GH5 in 4K, but I hope the GH7 Proresraw mode will be free of any of the processing Panasonic uses since the GH6.

 

[Davide DB]

Guys could you point me to an official statement that the GH7 body/controls are identical to GH6?

I found a bargain GH6 underwater housing but before I pull the trigger I have to be sure.

[Davide DB]

15 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

Guys could you point me to an official statement that the GH7 body/controls are identical to GH6?

I found a bargain GH6 underwater housing but before I pull the trigger I have to be sure.

Actually from Panasonic website the two cameras seems identical on the external dimension at least.

100,3mm x 138,4mm x 99,6mm
 

Gh7 is 805 g vs 823 g of GH6.

 

Then on site Camera Decision I found this photo with 1mm of difference.

 

[kye]

1 hour ago, Beritar said:

before pressing the recording button the image is prefectly in focus, but as soon as you press the button, the camera tries to re-focus and literraly lost the point of focus

Maybe you would benefit from using back-button focus?  I use it on the GX85 and it works brilliantly because you have full control over when the AF is enabled.

[John Matthews]

1 hour ago, Beritar said:

I don't agree about the GH6 looking super organic.

I wish "organic" were a defined term, but it's not. To me, in Standard profile, it just looks the way I remember it being. The skin tones look diverse enough yet not accentuating skin blemishes. What I don't like is when I need to put more contrast in the skin tones because the camera reduced the contrast too much. At least for my caucasian skin, it looked nice. The files and colors just seemed to have some depth to them.

1 hour ago, Beritar said:

For me it often looks digitally soft, even more in 4k and C4K.

I never noticed this; nor can I fathom why this would happen, but I cannot say with any certainty it happens not. What I did notice was it was practically impossible to confidently manually focus with large aperture lenses. The magnified image seemed too soft. This is unlike the GH5. I'm not sure about the GH7, but I have asked about without a real response.

For everything you said about the AF, I soon realized that the GH6 couldn't be fully dependable and it was always better to use manual focus and make good use of the [AF] button on the screen or assigning a button. For video and AF, I think it's clear that PDAF is essential in 2024. Any testing of continuous AF with the current contrast systems seems futile and almost a waste of time IMO. I don't really understand why, but I've always thought Olympus had much better contrast AF than Panasonic (even with the millions they'd probably spent on testing, engineering, and especially marketing Depth by Defocus). In good light, Olympus cameras performed as their PDAF counterparts. I also didn't really notice a big difference from the GH2 to the GH6- what does that say? There was only a lot more boxes on the screen but the results were practically the same.

[John Matthews]

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

Actually from Panasonic website the two cameras seems identical on the external dimension at least.

100,3mm x 138,4mm x 99,6mm
 

Gh7 is 805 g vs 823 g of GH6.

 

Then on site Camera Decision I found this photo with 1mm of difference.

 

Something seems off in those numbers. Are you saying they would make a whole different chassis for 1mm? That cannot be right.

[Emanuel]

6 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

Something seems off in those numbers. Are you saying they would make a whole different chassis for 1mm? That cannot be right.

Well seen, it should be the same, I guess.

[Davide DB]

32 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

Something seems off in those numbers. Are you saying they would make a whole different chassis for 1mm? That cannot be right.

 

Well, yes and no. It depends...

Modern housings bring outside all the controls and remap them in a more ergonomic position for underwater use. A housing is like a glove with a perfect fit. 

Once upon a time the internal mechanisms allowed micro adjustments to compensate for small production variations between camera bodies. They no longer exist but I remember that the legendary GH2 was little more than a toy and when I changed the camera body because I had flooded the housing I had to change the rubber wheels that acted on the diaphragms because the wheels of the two bodies were slightly different. Now with more professional cameras the problem no longer exists.
To show you how even 1 mm can make a difference, this is the back of an S1H, outside and inside. A small gem of engineering. You understand that when a new camera model uses the previous body, I open a bottle of sparkling wine 🙂