Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

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

    I thought you really liked the R5 until you had the edit the footage?

    Comment


      I did, it was a great camera, a lot of fun as I'm a mirorrless guy. And the highest quality mode or two was clearly better than its other compressions/resolutions, but it was the same "bleh" Canon video. Nicer than their previous offerings but nothing special once my hype evaporated.

      I was comparing some of my 5D Mark IV footage to it at the time (didn't talk about it), and the former was just as good visually in the grand scheme on the world wide web.

      Comment


        Hype will get you. I try to keep my expectations realistic compared to my usage and price point. I know I will only get good video not cine quality but that is my realistic operating space. I really only need AF for gimbal work. I would hate to choose a camera on gimbal usage alone. At least the bit depth has moved to 10bit and beyond in many models so one can have more control in post to improve the images.

        Comment


          Originally posted by DLD View Post
          I know. No one's even heard of Yongnou MFT.
          Just some of the others you forgot to mention:
          Z Cam, JVC, & DJI.
          Am a Sound Recordist in New Zealand: http://ironfilm.co.nz/sound/
          Follow my vlog and adventures in sound: https://www.youtube.com/c/SoundSpeeding

          Comment


            Originally posted by Samuel Dilworth View Post
            A Four Thirds sensor is at least a couple of hundred dollars cheaper than a full-frame one. That becomes compelling when the total price of the camera is low. At $2500, this benefit is worth less (but not worthless).

            Therefore, I think Panasonic needs to ease down the price of the GH-series cameras. I suspect that will start happening already with the GH6, which might be less innovative than previous cameras were, releative to the rest of the market. But cheaper. Fine by me.

            The other major benefit of Micro Four Thirds is the wide range of smaller and cheaper lenses available. There remains a market for cheaper cameras as long as they’re not dumbed down for people who would prefer to point and shoot. That worked in the past. Nowadays, people who still buy standalone cameras want to be involved in the process. So cheap cameras today must still be enthusiast-focused, just less full-featured, bleeding-edge in tech, and solidly built than high-end cameras.

            The mistake is to assume there’s no market for cheap cameras just because the old approach of aiming cheap cameras at non-photographers no longer works.
            I agree, the "cheap camera for non-photographers" market is nearly dead. Smartphones killed that.

            But that doesn't mean the entire "cheap camera" market is dead in all its forms.

            Not everyone is a professional cameraman, or a hobbyist while being a dentist/doctor/banker at their day job.

            Thus there remains a strong enough market for a US$1.5K-ish priced camera (a GH6) and a US$750-ish camera (G85mk2) and a US$400ish body (GX850mk2).

            That initial pricing difference between a MFT and FF sensor from the manufacture will allow Panasonic to hit those price points while still cramming in a lot of features into the cameras.

            As camera brands fret over even just a fifty dollar price point difference, as that changes who the buyers are for a camera.

            Plus let's not ignore the size benefits either! There is a large size/weight difference between a couple of bodies with a full lens kit when it is FF vs MFT.
            This matters a lot for documentary shooters, or anybody else who travels a lot. Or simply anybody else who wants a lighter bag, be it hikers or retirees.
            Am a Sound Recordist in New Zealand: http://ironfilm.co.nz/sound/
            Follow my vlog and adventures in sound: https://www.youtube.com/c/SoundSpeeding

            Comment


              Originally posted by NorBro View Post
              I did, it was a great camera, a lot of fun as I'm a mirorrless guy. And the highest quality mode or two was clearly better than its other compressions/resolutions, but it was the same "bleh" Canon video. Nicer than their previous offerings but nothing special once my hype evaporated.

              I was comparing some of my 5D Mark IV footage to it at the time (didn't talk about it), and the former was just as good visually in the grand scheme on the world wide web.
              Wait for the R1!
              www.VideoAbe.com

              "If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

              Comment


                I'll get lava stone countertops if I want to look at something pretty and expensive that just sits there. lol

                Comment


                  Just sits there? I dont follow.

                  It's possible that the R1 will bring canon stills quality to video. At the very least, it'll be a functional R5, though perhaps you've soured on the R5
                  www.VideoAbe.com

                  "If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

                  Comment


                    Meaning it wouldn't get used much, ha

                    Comment


                      There's certainly no chance I'll buy it, no matter how good it is. Even if I hadn't just invested in e mount glass. The $3500 a7siii was more than I wanted to spend on that type of camera. I'd rather spend 2000-2500. Not that it isn't worth it. But something in the a7iv/s5/r6 tier can pretty much get the job done too. The A7SIII was just the only fully featured fully functional unit available at this time
                      www.VideoAbe.com

                      "If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

                      Comment


                        I had a rule of no cameras over $3000 for the last 3 years. I made an exception for the R5 because the entire package was something that hadn't been seen in a long time (or maybe never), but that will never happen again. $2000 is the absolute maximum moving forward.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Peter C. View Post
                          I'm actually talking about an industry/marketing/engineering standpoint. MFT is a relatively new format and at the time when FF sensors were expensive, sony, canon and nikon offered inexpensive lenses and cameras based around APS-c. Those companies had robust lens families with mounts that had been used for decades. Panasonic which didn't have that advantage could have used their lens mount but chose not to. They put all their effort into a small sensor with no room to grow.
                          Back then, it was impossible to predict the extraordinary appeal that full-frame would have in the market. (Even today I find this slightly bewildering.)

                          The initial appeal was as you say: to use existing Canon and Nikon lens ranges that had been designed for 135-format film. That was worth a lot to Canon and Nikon (and Sony, ex Konica Minolta, to a lesser extent), but no-one starting a digital camera system from scratch would have thought to use a legacy film format that saddled you with a load of manufacturing and cost problems in exchange for hitting some arbitrary performance point that no-one had any reason to suspect would be special.

                          If anything, engineers expected to be able to reduce the sensor size while retaining adequate quality, since the image sensor was more efficient than film at capturing photons. Indeed, early Kodak and Olympus Four Thirds brochures talk about this.

                          But since Canon had the most to gain by retaining a lens range, they made tremendous efforts to get full-frame CMOS sensors off the ground, doing crazy things like aligning multiple exposures at the lithography stage. There was a Canon ‘white paper’ floating about boasting about how expensive full-frame sensors were to make. Good advertising in retrospect!

                          This era (from the EOS-1Ds to the original 5D for Canon) cemented the impression in the public imagination that full-frame was something special. The cameras didn’t have a one-stop noise advantage over Nikon DX as physics predicted but more than that, because Nikon had worse sensor tech.

                          Then, when Nikon moved from DX to FX with the D3, they made a simultaneous leap in sensor tech. This again gave an advantage to full-frame cameras that had nothing to do with the sensor size but compounded the apparent benefit.

                          By now, Canon and Nikon were designing new lenses for full-frame digital, and the format had become entrenched against the odds.

                          The move to mirrorless would have been another opportunity to start from scratch with an optimised sensor area, but by then the full-frame size (which is no fuller than any other designed-for sensor, of course, but even the jargon works in its favour) already had a market draw that could not be denied.

                          Conversely, Micro Four Thirds (and APS-C and even Super 35 for cinema) now has an image problem.

                          And it’s a quirk of history that no-one wants anything fuller than full-frame, although those sensors exist too.

                          All of this works against Panasonic with the GH range, but as I suggested upthread, it also gives Panasonic a unique opportunity: they can throw tech and firmware features at the GH6 with less worry about cannibalising higher-end cameras, since the high-end cameras retain the trump card of a larger sensor for differentiation. Canon and Sony cannot so easily do that with their mirrorless cameras, since those cameras already have what many people really want – a full-frame sensor – hence the necessary ‘crippling’.

                          Nikon, meanwhile, has no high-end video camera range to worry about, but they have been late to recognise the value of video. I think they have belatedly understood this and will make a major effort on video in the next generation of Z cameras – potentially giving Canon and Sony a headache.
                          Last edited by Samuel Dilworth; 11-19-2020, 03:14 AM.

                          Comment


                            While I have the attention of GH users, maybe someone can help me with this.

                            At the launch of the GH4, Panasonic presented this PDF file of the technology behind it:

                            http://www.personal-view.com/downloa...esentation.pdf

                            And for the GH5, the same:

                            http://www.personal-view.com/downloa...esentation.pdf

                            Do any of you have a similar document for the GH5S or even the BGH1? Would love to see it.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by IronFilm View Post
                              Plus let's not ignore the size benefits either! There is a large size/weight difference between a couple of bodies with a full lens kit when it is FF vs MFT. This matters a lot for documentary shooters, or anybody else who travels a lot. Or simply anybody else who wants a lighter bag, be it hikers or retirees.
                              That's exactly what happened with my wife. She had a Nikon D7000 APS-C camera that she really liked a lot, and had a couple of lenses for it. But the size/weight got too much for her, and we sold the Nikon and got a Panasonic GH3. We haven't looked back... she is a serious hobbyist with excellent Photoshop skills, so she is picky about image quality (mostly photo quality). Her go-to camera now is a Panasonic GX8, while I have the GH5.

                              Comment


                                A few points -

                                size matters ... the smaller, the better.

                                But, here once comes to the difference between photography and videography. In photo, one can control the exposure. In video, one's kind of screwed. In photo, one wants a higher res. In video, one wants the DR, the readout and the codec. This was one of the reasons why the MFT alliance split along the photocentric (Olympus) and the videocentric (Panasonic). The problem was that neither could choose their sensor and it worked out fine for Panasonic, where 16 MPX was fine for the 4K video. It hadn't worked out for Olympus because a current generation of smartphones has as many as 108.

                                But, as I am sure everyone understands, smartphones gun up the gain at low light, then apply heavy noise reduction, then oversharpen the leftovers internally. This works reasonably well for Facebook and Instagram but it ain't exactly suitable for the high quality video. Obviously, there is some gain and some noise reduction in every model but, for those who do their own post, it doesn't need to be done in camera. Meaning that an 8K MFT is likely to have some nasty artifacts in video.

                                And this leads to larger pixels/wells and larger sensors. Cost-wise, there was a huge difference. Ages ago. Look up full frame replacement sensors on eBay. They're around $300 (R5 is probably going to be more). Working of the formula where the retail spare parts pricing is roughly four times the cost of manufacturing brings the full frame sensor production costs to $75-$100/module. The smartphone sensors range from $6-$10/photo module for 12 MPX on Apple to $35/module for 108 MPX on Samsung. In other words, the modern production methods make the retail cost difference fairly negligible, $200-$500 between MFT, APS-C and FF on the high end. And once medium format starts being less exclusive, it'll be the next step for both photo and cinema.

                                And that's because over the last 70 years or so, prior to the emergence of the digital systems, big budget features were shot on the 65mm anyway. Even these days, Tarantino, Spielberg and Nolan prefer 65mm film. Right now, for digital acquisition, Alexa65 would be their only choice. (Fuji GFX100 can shoot video too but it line skips due to its 108 MPX). This will change soon enough and, as is the case with history repeating, within a few years this will trickle down to the consumer/low end pro level.

                                And none of the above portends well for MFT.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X