is gh4 really that worse than newer cameras?

[zlfan]

 

[newfoundmass]

Like with your GH5 post the other day, almost all cameras made in the last 10 years are capable tools that can produce nice images. It doesn't mean though that you should go out and buy a GH4 in 2024. There are plenty of "quality of life" improvements that have occured since the GH4's release that make it a lot less desirable camera compared to something like the GH5 or S1. We're blessed to be at a point where we could use a 10 year old camera and still get good results if we HAD to, but let's not pretend that the cameras that have come out since aren't significantly better in every way. IBIS alone radically changed the way I film and work.

[zlfan]

29 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Like with your GH5 post the other day, almost all cameras made in the last 10 years are capable tools that can produce nice images. It doesn't mean though that you should go out and buy a GH4 in 2024. There are plenty of "quality of life" improvements that have occured since the GH4's release that make it a lot less desirable camera compared to something like the GH5 or S1. We're blessed to be at a point where we could use a 10 year old camera and still get good results if we HAD to, but let's not pretend that the cameras that have come out since aren't significantly better in every way. IBIS alone radically changed the way I film and work.

totally agree. image itself may already be good enough for most cameras, now the ibis and c-af are the differentiators. I also consider ibis is critical, even more than c af, as I can use mf lenses on an ibis body and go handheld. 

[Benjamin Hilton]

It depends on what you want to do with them of course. For me personally, the GH5 was kind of the 5d mkii of the photography world. It was the marker when image quality hit the "good enough" metric. For most work, shooting with the GH4 will still be a frustrating experience image wise. Not to say it can't produce good images, it's just very limited compared to modern alternatives. The GH5 was where cameras really hit a "I can get 75% of what a 2024 camera can get most of the time" kind of reality. 

 

That being said, if your standard is low and you are just looking for a sharp image and some basically decent color, the GH4 will be fine. 

[zlfan]

the best of the old mirrorless may have good enough resolution, but lacks in dr severely. also the evf and lcd resolution are outdated. 

the bes of the old cinema cameras like f35, Alexa ev, red dragon still hold their own against the latest mirrorless in terms of image quality, maybe surpass in some aspects. 

[zlfan]

the only old hybrids that are really good in image quality even by today's standards are magic lantern cameras, 5d3ml, crop mood 700d/650d/100d/eos m. 

[newfoundmass]

50 minutes ago, zlfan said:

the best of the old mirrorless may have good enough resolution, but lacks in dr severely. also the evf and lcd resolution are outdated. 

I don't even think they lack in resolution. There are old cameras with 1080p that still look good to me, among them the original BMPCC, C100, and the GH3 (and hacked GH2). They might not have the higher resolution or the DR of cameras today, but they have pleasing images that hold up. In fact, from a pure image standpoint, the BMPCC was my favorite camera I've ever owned. It's the other quality of life things that made me move on more than the resolution or dynamic range. Other cameras had a "good enough" image, but better battery life, IBIS, auto focus, audio preamps, etc. were all worth the trade off. I could pull out my GH5 with minimal rigging and get 2 hours of record time, amazing IBIS, good enough auto focus, and all the other things that made my job significantly easier.