Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thomas Smet
    replied
    Originally posted by DLD View Post
    That's because smaller sensors had a cost of manufacturing advantage over their larger brethren. Additionally, the cartel held back on the full width readout and downsampling, making lower resolution sensors more palatable for video, including 4K.

    Naturally, one could make a quality 8K MFT model - many smartphones have 50-100 MPX photo-video modules - but the decision from above is apparently to let the format wither on the vine.

    PS. There's allegedly a "high end" OMD (ex-Olympus) model somewhere in the offing but I don't expect anything beyond GH-6 specs. It will, however, be sold as "revolutionary" and "the best ever".
    I'm not sure thats entirely true. Its a balance of quality more than anything. m43 for the longest time had 16MP because each pixel was a bit larger and it helped gather a bit more light. The GH5 jumped to 20 MP and thanks to the better technology we didn't lose any sensitivity but we didn't really gain any either. It was only with the GH5S and its smaller resolution that we started to really see m43 shine as a low light camera. For video at least.

    Going higher than 20MP is not easy because m43 should not go backwards in terms of sensitivity. Panasonic will get crushed in the reviews if the GH6 has worse low light than the GH5 does. Thats why they can't just jump up to 8k. Its just too much for that sensor size to handle. Smart phones get away with it because well they are smart phones and the quality kind of sucks anyway. Plus they do a crap load of NR and processing to help that crap sensor along. If you remove the over processing and heavy NR that 8k on a smartphone sensor will really be horrendous. Have you ever seen a raw photo from a iPhone? Its not very pretty. Pixel size is important and m43 can only shrink those pixels so much. I for one am super glad m43 didn't go 8k yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zim
    replied
    Panasonic could make a great camera...if they wanted to. The Gh5 was a big seller. They could put a lot in the gH6, including auto focus that works and under $2,000. They would still make lots of money, but will they just want to milk their customers?

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by DLD View Post
    FS-7 became so dominant that even Abe bought it.
    That is true, but I didn't buy it until 2020 right before the lockdown because my timing is even worse than my ability to predict camera popularity with clients. I wish I had bought an FS7 right when it came out. Oddly enough, it's still in demand

    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    The first major salvo, however, was JVC GY-HMQ10U - a small sensor (20mm2) camcorder that recorded 4K into four separate SD cards, with the footage then having to be stitched together in the editing software. It was first announced in January, 2012 and shipped a few months afterwards for $5,500.

    It was marketed as a consumer camera. I thought the image quality were pretty nice but the model never really took off and JVC only had a single consumer/prosumer ILC model after that.

    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    FS-7 came out at about the same time as GH-4 (nice product segmentation - an MFT for $1,700 and an APS-C for $7,500) F-700 with Odyssey external was about $10,000 prior to that. Canon announced C300 MKII in the spring of 2015 but it was MSRP'd at $16,000. FS-7 became so dominant that even Abe bought it. Blackmagic Cinema Camera was 2.8K, as was Alexa. But CC was slightly cheaper of the two.

    Samsung NX-1 was announced in the fall of 2014 too. Maybe that forced the cartel to respond since the Japanese must have known that Samsung would try to encroach into their territory. Likewise, Samsung's Galaxy Note 3 was the first smartphone to have 4K in the fall of 2013.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    Originally posted by DLD View Post
    That's because smaller sensors had a cost of manufacturing advantage over their larger brethren. Additionally, the cartel held back on the full width readout and downsampling, making lower resolution sensors more palatable for video, including 4K.

    Naturally, one could make a quality 8K MFT model - many smartphones have 50-100 MPX photo-video modules - but the decision from above is apparently to let the format wither on the vine.

    PS. There's allegedly a "high end" OMD (ex-Olympus) model somewhere in the offing but I don't expect anything beyond GH-6 specs. It will, however, be sold as "revolutionary" and "the best ever".
    I'd like to know what made them change their mind(s) to move along faster.

    Only company for the money killing them with quality was Blackmagic but their cameras had issues too.

    Nothing else was available besides fixed lens prosumer camcorders, so they had another few years of selling $10K-$15K cameras but decided to lower their own money bar with the FS7 and $4K-ish mirrorless'/DSLRs.

    No one on planet earth besides the 1% was going to buy a camera more than $8K, $10K after that.

    But I also guess that's why the FS7 was a legend and maybe a worthy decision, payoff.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Smet
    replied
    Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
    Unless you need a super lightweight camera/lens package or super telephoto or deep focus or super high frame rate (and someone built a m43 camera that leverages faster readout speeds into super HFR), then I don't see why you would want m43 over FF. Granted, the above conditions apply to lots of people. But if you're not one of them, then you probably get more advantages from FF
    Is that even all that true anymore? Once FF went mirrorless they started making everything smaller. Granted a 70-200 f2.9 lens for FF is always going to be a beast but technically in order for m43 to pull off similar performance it really needs a 35-100mm f1.4 lens which would not be small either. The 50mm f1.8 I have for the R6 is super tiny. Their 35mm and 85mm f1.8 and f2 are pretty compact as well. FF lenses don't always have to be massive and FF doesn't always have to have f2.8 zooms either. M43 did have a lens size advantage but then that was also for lenses that would not perform as well. Olympus did have a very nice 50-150mm f2.8 but it wasn't exactly compact either. Many of the new Panasonic lenses like the f1.7 zooms are not small at all. Olympus makes some killer pro series primes now but they are just as expensive as FF higher lenses and just as big/heavy.

    when m43 had a small size advantage that also came along with a lower quality disadvantage.

    I still say APSC and m43 have one distinct advantage and thats telephoto. FF requires a massive bazooka size 100-600mm or longer lens for wildlife while m43 can use a nice compact 100-300mm lens for the same reach. Even some photographers I have read about like to keep a APSC body for stills vs investing in longer glass or having to crop or adding a teleconverter. I considered keeping the 32MP APSC M6 for that reason but I'm really not all that happy with how it handles video compared to the R6. Plus I see the Canon M mount as pretty much dead and I'm better off getting rid of it while I can. For video I have tried the APSC 1.6x crop on the R6. Amazing looking and the 24-240 is now 384mm on the long end. For stills that crop would kind of suck but usable in some situations I guess. At least not much worse than what GH5S stills would have been. At some point I know I will have to invest in those beasts of telephoto zooms.

    I do know of some seasoned photographers that have switched to m43 specifically for wildlife. The compact super reach of the zooms is much better than a 4lb tank sticking on the end of a camera. Well at least it would have been. Panasonic only ever really had one 300mm lens for the longest time and it was ok. Affordable however. They do have a 400mm now but it costs a lot more. Still its much smaller than a 800mm FF lens. I do dread having to use FF for wildlife but I will cross that bridge when I get there I guess. Ido want a second body once I sell off my GH4, P4k and M6 mk2 and maybe the GH6 will be that second body so I can get a 2x reach when I need it.

    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    Originally posted by NorBro View Post
    MFT had a great run. From like 2012-2017, the specifications provided to us in this format for the price were better than S35 and FF ...
    That's because smaller sensors had a cost of manufacturing advantage over their larger brethren. Additionally, the cartel held back on the full width readout and downsampling, making lower resolution sensors more palatable for video, including 4K.

    Naturally, one could make a quality 8K MFT model - many smartphones have 50-100 MPX photo-video modules - but the decision from above is apparently to let the format wither on the vine.

    PS. There's allegedly a "high end" OMD (ex-Olympus) model somewhere in the offing but I don't expect anything beyond GH-6 specs. It will, however, be sold as "revolutionary" and "the best ever".

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Unless you need a super lightweight camera/lens package or super telephoto or deep focus or super high frame rate (and someone built a m43 camera that leverages faster readout speeds into super HFR), then I don't see why you would want m43 over FF. Granted, the above conditions apply to lots of people. But if you're not one of them, then you probably get more advantages from FF

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    MFT had a great run. From like 2012-2017, the specifications provided to us in this format for the price were better than S35 and FF, but eventually the 10-bit, the AF, the IBIS (even digital), etc. all made it into S35 and more importantly full-frame cameras, which naturally arrived with better low-light performance, and it's difficult to go back.

    I think the GH6 is still going to be great...one last hoorah, if anything. Because I don't know who else is left to make a video MFT, will or no will, besides Blackmagic and not sure they'll make any more (besides any broadcast studio cameras).

    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    Not to repeat myself like I do on kielbasa but the format/sensor size limitations are not as important as the cartel's control over the market, which long ago sent MFT to the children's table. The technology to do a real high end MFT camera is there. The will isn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    Over the years, you were the main man, the voice for MFT on this forum and defended Panasonic well, but it pleases me you've finally come around because I felt like you were really missing out by at least not trying some of the newer technology.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Smet
    replied
    I'm finding it harder and harder to want a GH6 to be honest. Just picked up a 24-240 Rf f4-f6.3 for the Canon R6. To kind of replace what I could do with the 14-140 on m43. Thanks to Dual Native ISO on the P4k the 14-140 was a ton more useful than it ever was on the GH4 in less than optimal lighting. It still had its limits however.

    I shot with the 24-240 the other night at ISO 25600 c.log3 and it was cleaner than ISO 3200 with a rec709 profile on the GH4. Some visible noise but still ok to not need NR in post.

    Even a slow superzoom is performing much better than I ever could do on m43.

    Now I still love m43 and I think within its limitations its a killer format. But myself personally I have kind of moved on. I still find lighting to be the better solution but when I travel or I am getting shots of my daughter at home thats not always an option. Same with long dark venues where lighting would be too complex and may not be an option at all. Now I will of course still use a camera light when needed and better lighting if I can but its even more liberating to have this ability.

    I think the GH6 will be amazing but at this point it would be really difficult to pull me away from what I can do with the R6. Realistically the GH6 will likely be the same cost as well and all the good m43 lenses are not all that much more affordable anymore. Panasonic really needs to rethink its glass if they want to complete. f2.8-f4 should be the new slow affordable zoom range now. Ideally that should be f2-f2.8 to really compete. If they could manage that then yes m43 would be a solid format. Its really the standard zooms that kill m43 and where I feel FF has its biggest advantage.

    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    The Japanese just had a closed Olympics. No fans in the stands. So, the Japanese manufacturers have to be mindful of "other considerations".

    In Europe, soccer is being played in sold out arenas, as is the NFL in the US. Which brings up the question of budgets. NFL needs the attendance, the video manufacturers probably feel they can get by with YouTube.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    Someone should take a look at the vendor list and then navigate to those vendors' press releases concerning NAB (if applicable) and compare how many may or may not have opted out.

    The human thing (or at least the public relations thing) to do is to protect health and prevent the virus, but after that maybe the show "must not go on" because the people who are running it are likely not doing it just for fun.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X