How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

[Ron Evans]

If you are choosing equipment for your business then of course it has to do the job that you have taken. Or don't take the job or life will not be happy. I know lots here make their living this way but there are lots of hobbyists too remember that are most likely to buy these products. Panasonic would go broke if they needed to just live off the pro user. I am one kind of serious hobbyist but there are others with different needs. I don't make decisions based on payback, hobbies cost money it is only down to if I want to buy that product and can justify ( especially to my wife ) . I think the GH5II would be a perfect camera for all sorts of people purely because of the streaming. Kids games etc will be all the rage I think streaming to grandparents etc. Set up link with the phone, put phone in pocket and shoot the game. Or even nature video of say birds etc. This will also be the key I think for some professional markets like streaming funeral services or even conventions. This I think will be the key feature of the GH5II.

If you want real low light then move to Sony FF. But do you really need that low ? My goal is to record as one sees the set live. Not brighter or darker. If the scene in the theatre is such that the audience cannot see on the stage I do not want the camera to see either and make sure it is set that way. I find both the GH5 with the 12-60 and the GH5S with 14-140 are fine. Don't need anything more though wider dynamic range would be nice of course. But both are ample when I edit and make DVD or Bluray !! Clearly for me I would want to move to HDR etc. This is a hobby goal not for business of course.

[DLD]

I'm not so sure about that. $2,500 is still a bargain for a professional camera and there are a lot of flagship models that cost a lot more than the GH6. Just because some APS-C or FF models may cost less doesn't really mean much. The Canon RP is $1,200 and FF and yet people out there still buy the GH5, Olympus higher end cameras and other smaller sensor models...

It, obviously, depends on what you're shooting and on your budget. Over the last few days, I saw someone's clip with A1 and a 600mm prime ... and he still couldn't track birds (because it's a skill).

BTW, I think I totally get your point. It's all a matter of personal preference. Which is why some people drive yellow Porsche's.

PS. RP is down to a grand but it's selling well, at least, off the B&H rankings.

[Thomas Smet]

It, obviously, depends on what you're shooting and on your budget. Over the last few days, I saw someone's clip with A1 and a 600mm prime ... and he still couldn't track birds (because it's a skill).

BTW, I think I totally get your point. It's all a matter of personal preference. Which is why some people drive yellow Porsche's.

PS. RP is down to a grand but it's selling well, at least, off the B&H rankings.

I almost went with a RP but in the end decided to get the M6 because as APS-C it has extra reach and it had 32MP vs 24MP on the RP and was the same cost. The RP also had cropped 4k video while the M6 is not cropped. As APS-C the M6 can shoot longer telephoto stills at 32 MP vs the RP which is APS-C crop mode was like 12 MP. Plus the EF-M mount can use a Metabones making it very close to a FF 32 MP stills camera. It can also crop those 32 MP images down to 2x crop for 26 MP. So really it made the most sense and offered the most options over the RP and still provided phase detect auto focus which the RP does not have for 4k video.

The RP is a nice stills camera but very far from perfect for video.

Thats been kind of my point about features vs sensor size. Sensor size actually should not determine camera cost. There are m43 and APS-C cameras that rightly should cost more than the RP. Its nice to have more sensitivity and DOF but those are single features and not the sole cost determine factor. Plus not everyone needs those things. ISO 200 is ISO 200 no matter what camera is used. Sensitivity only really matters if someone likes to use a lot of ISO. When shooting stills I don't like to use a lot of ISO no matter the camera. DOF also has a lot of overlap. Its only the extreme ends where the sensors differ. M43 has a lot of DOF control and when adding a focal reducer has the exact same DOF as over 100 years of cinema. I realize some people want more but that doesn't mean that should cost more. Thinner DOF is not a cost factor. Its a different type of DOF. Orson Welles would have killed to have m43 over 35mm film when he was trying to get more of the frame in focus vs cutting holes in the studio floor to get the camera further away.

I actually consider FF just as odd compared to s35mm as m43 is. Just in the opposite direction. I'm also not a fan of stopping down a FF camera by one stop to match the s35mm DOF which in effect causes the lens to capture one stop less of light. I guess I'm a s35mm purist but to me thats still the standard or at the very least a normal standard of Hollywood.

[jdv]

No all those improvements are not possible as a firmware update. As has been stated multiple times now the GH5 processor just could not handle 4k 60p 10bit.

I never mentioned 10 bit as something that could be upgraded via firmware.

However, every feature I did mention is.

So yeah, bad look for Panasonic.

For those claiming full frame is over-rated, the market segment clearly disagrees... including Panasonic. So does every other camera company (excepting for Blackmagic... so far). Full frame is obviously the one dominating the market now, and likely forever more.

Far as feature sets, all new cameras now have pretty much the same, so it's not a question of features as it is price and lens selection....

And to that point, Panasonic does not offer cheap, fast, primes (much less zooms). Every lens 12mm or wider and faster than 2.8 they offer costs over $1,000. Put another way, to shoot 12mm at 1.4 on the GH6 will cost you $3,800....

Not exactly compelling.

This lack of cheap, wide, fast primes has always been the Achilles heel of the MFT format. And because Panasonic has not addressed that fact in the slightest is a clear indication that MFT is a 2ndary concern.

Does anyone really think otherwise?

Put another way....

"OK class, how many people who have put in their 2 cents on this very long thread have put in their orders for the GH5II?

I see no hands raised."

[Thomas Smet]

Thomas, your theory about stills, FF and what people want has many angles. To start, the GH5 is a mediocre stills camera. I have tried to use it in that role and the images are noisey and lack punch. This is with shooting RAW with a custom profile just like I make for my other cameras. Basically, the camera needs to be in outdoor light to make decent images. If one goes to the M4/3rds forum on DPReview, there is not much discussion about GH5 cameras as the focus is predominantly stills oriented. So I think it is misplaced from Panasonic's point of view to think people will be buying the GH6 for stills use over other cameras. This depends upon of they decide to make the GH6 the new G10, but that is a different conversation. One might say FF is overrated, but I would take the Canon RP over the GH5 IF I was going to shoot stills.

I'm not sure everyone would view the GH5 as a mediocre stills camera. I shot stills with a GH1 that a client purchased instead of the Canon photographer they hired. I was there with the production crew and just bought the Gh1 and was walking around testing it out. The client heard about it and asked to see the stills.

I agree maybe some larger sensor cameras are better but that also isn't just a sensor thing. I know a lot of seasoned professionals that have switched to Olympus for nature stills. Panasonic may have a specific look to it that may be less pleasing to some but that doesn't mean thats a limitation of the sensor size. To be fair I feel the same way about Sony stills. Thats kind of why I went with a Canon M6 as an experiment. So far I'm liking it. What I do not like is having to haul a P4k for video and a M6 for stills around to my daughters soccer games. I'm going to like it even less on vacation. I have a cruise coming up in early September assuming the CDC doesn't force it to cancel. I now kind of miss having the one hybrid to do it all camera. Sadly that is not really Canon or Nikon. Fuji is the only alternative I considered for the one true hybrid to rule them all but I read the EF lens compatibility was a bit hit or miss. Plus I think Fuji has even less chance of staying alive than Panasonic does. At least m43 lenses can be used on a P4k which is a very popular cinema camera. All the other mirrorless formats are locked into that manufacturer and will likely never be able to be used on 3rd party cinema cameras. As long as BMD sticks with the m43 mount that is. The future seems kind of unknown for EF as well since Canon is not producing new EF lenses. What is BMD going to do in the future? PL mount only?

EF-M suffers from the same thing but I did buy a Sigma 30mm f1.4 because it was under $300 used. Killed lens that easily replaces my Leica 25m f1.4 I used on the GH4. I wanted at least a normal FOV walk around lens that was compact. I might get the other two Sigma lenses since they are affordable. If I move away from the M6 I'm sure I can sell the whole kit. I know however that is my only option. To sell the lenses with the body or else I'm stuck with useless glass.

Ironically m43 glass is the only flexible lens mount left besides EF. At least it can be used across a wide range of manufactures natively. Panasonic, Olympus, BMD. As long as cameras stick to that mount m43 glass is going to have a future. I'm very hesitant to invest in other mirrorless mount glass because its a deadens mount. That goes for L mount as well. I know they are amazing but I don't want to invest that kind of money in glass that may never work with another camera if I leave the Panasonic S series. The S cameras not supporting continuous autofocus with EF was the deal breaker for me.

At some point in the future when we can no longer adapt lenses I know I will have to pick a format and stick with it and toss it in the trash when that mount dies. That sucks but we are not there yet. I just don't want to be forced into a manufacturers camera body choices based on what lens mount I invest in. I like the Canon and Nikon stills but I hate their video. That now means I have to invest in two sets of glass in order to use the raw video I want to use. As long as I can still pick up EF lenses the m43 and EF-M bodies will be my bodies of choice for now.

[Thomas Smet]

I never mentioned 10 bit as something that could be upgraded via firmware.

However, every feature I did mention is.

So yeah, bad look for Panasonic.

For those claiming full frame is over-rated, the market segment clearly disagrees... including Panasonic. So does every other camera company (excepting for Blackmagic... so far). Full frame is obviously the one dominating the market now, and likely forever more.

Far as feature sets, all new cameras now have pretty much the same, so it's not a question of features as it is price and lens selection....

And to that point, Panasonic does not offer cheap, fast, primes (much less zooms). Every lens 12mm or wider and faster than 2.8 they offer costs over $1,000. Put another way, to shoot 12mm at 1.4 on the GH6 will cost you $3,800....

Not exactly compelling.

This lack of cheap, wide, fast primes has always been the Achilles heel of the MFT format. And because Panasonic has not addressed that fact in the slightest is a clear indication that MFT is a 2ndary concern.

Does anyone really think otherwise?

Put another way....

"OK class, how many people who have put in their 2 cents on this very long thread have put in their orders for the GH5II?

I see no hands raised."

It is not a bad look to not provide a firmware update for a five year old camera. If the GH6 was coming out tomorrow and there was no GH5mk2 you still wouldn't;t be getting a firmware update on the GH5. Its done.

FF sells because thats what companies want to sell. m43 also sells and does fairly well. APS-C never did partially because it has been marketed by the other companies as a crop camera or somehow a lesser camera. Take the EF-M mount for example. Canon only made it because they had to and never really gave it much of a chance. Now that they have the R mount they will likely let it die or just let it sit by and occasionally throw its users a bone.

Its also a well known fact that users obsess or have ben trained to obsess over FF without even really understanding why. We have seen this since the dawn of m43 and yet somehow people still felt FF was superior. I cannot believe the amount of people moving to cinema cameras that somehow felt the P6k was a lesser camera because it was S35mm and not FF. They have been trained to think FF means complete or the real version.

Lack of cheap fast wide primes? Huh? m43 has just as many as any other lens mount and may in fact actually have a lot more. Plus we can adapt any lens that may be missing. I can't think of a single lack of wide fast prime that can be used with m43. Heck we even have f0.95 primes which I may add compete with f1.8 on FF in terms of DOF.

[ahalpert]

Working professionals couldn't care less about what the "market" is saying and other people are buying. As long as what we need is still for sale!

It's the same reason I don't have an existential crisis every time someone talks down on AF. I know what it accomplishes for me in certain situations and I'm satisfied with that. To each his own

[filmguy123]

Growing up on motorcycles there was always the perception by new riders that 1000cc bikes were better than 600cc bikes. Yet a lot of seasoned riders knew better. The benefits of the 600cc motor in terms of size, weight, agility often outweighed the higher power of the 1000cc, and they were simply more fun to ride - the 1000cc were way too twitchy. And over time, as motors got better, the 600cc bikes became nearly as powerful as 1000cc bikes 10-15 years prior! So it was a moving target. Having had the chance and budget to ride both, I settled on a 675cc Triumph Street Triple - my favorite bike, and a much better ride to my tastes than the larger Speed Triple.

In high school, I never understood why someone would only order an 8oz drink at Starbucks. "But the 12oz or 16oz hardly costs more!". Bigger is better, right? As I got into craft coffee, you quickly realize how espresso to milk ratio completely changes the drink, how you need more sugar for a flavored drink to taste right at larger sizes and you want to avoid too much dairy/sugar, etc. Today my favorite drink is the 4oz Cortado (2 shots of espresso + 2oz steamed milk).

What is the point of story time with Filmguy? It's that bigger isn't better and many times less is more, but the mass market tends to think bigger is better and more is more.

Mind-trip: What if FF is not better than M43 across the board? What is M43 is "better" in a number of ways? Many professionals who choose M43 know this. It seems funny to me that people would think $2500 is too much for a M43 camera when you can get a FF camera for the same price. Well, that's one assuming that FF is better, when it is only different.

Like 600cc and 1000cc motorcycles, M43 image quality is starting to reach equilibrium with larger format sensors for most use cases. Sure, if you need 8K and super lowlight, go FF. But do you? Or would your work benefit more from the inherent advantages of M43? For me, the latter is often true.

I love my S1H, but I need way more ND stopping power outdoors with FF, and that can strain the image quality by having to crank VNDs up, or strain the workflow by needing multiple NDs. I can hardly keep anything in focus shooting too open on FF, and by the time I stop down to something reasonable to work with, I am not getting DoF that M43 can't offer at f/2.0-f/2.8. The GH5s can handle lowlight roughly as well as the S1H and pushing much further doesn't look so professional anyway, so what is the point?

I could go on, but M43 has a many advantages that make it *better* than FF in a number of scenarios (the crop factor can be a big advantage at times; it's much more fun to shoot with because I am more creative and agile, it's more discreet and so I often can find myself snagging more authentic feeling content, etc.). It's true that M43 image quality was really lacking in comparison to larger formats years ago, but the GH5 still looks fantastic when handled right - I've used GH5 footage with a Milvus on a speed booster side by side EVA1 and S1H footage and people could not discern the difference. Even if an eagle eyed DP like some of us here complain about some digitized processing on the GHx, the Pocket 4K proved how capable a smaller sensor was in terms of mojo and a less digital organic look. I am hopefully the new sensor and processing on the GH6 will put out some really, really beautiful footage.

I suggest it's time we stop thinking of FF > M43. I am not suggesting that M43 > FF, either. Rather, I am suggesting they are unique tools with different pros/cons. Much like a 600cc vs 1000cc motorcycle or a 4oz Cortado vs a 12oz Latte. One is not better than the other, they merely emphasize different things.

[Bassman2003]

FF is a stills format that happened to be ported to the video world because of economies of scale and the quest for resolution by the camera makers. I do not think many in the video community ever asked for FF, they just got it in the bodies that were being made that created the best images. We need a new metric like noise per DOF unit that is agnostic of format to judge camera image quality. This would lower the turf wars and put the emphasis on sensor and processing quality rather than just pixel size.

I am confident the GH6 will have image quality that rivals the S-series if they let it compete which is what we are waiting around for right? I don't think we will see one on store shelves until 2022, which will be a long time to wait. Hopefully I am wrong and it will appear in Oct/Nov.

[DLD]

Most digital formats were derived from the film world since lens mounts and sizes were adopted from there.

MFT is roughly Super 35mm 2-perf.

APS-C is 35mm 3-perf.

Alexa OLEV is 35mm 4-perf.

Full Frame is the old Vista Vision.

Medium Format is roughly 645.

In professional photography, the top portrait pros worked with the medium format film (Rolleiflex or Hasselblad). Nature photographers often worked with large format. 35mm was first made by the Germans in the 1930's as the "amateur" camera but the advances in film quality brought it on near par with the medium format of the previous generations.

[Thomas Smet]

Growing up on motorcycles there was always the perception by new riders that 1000cc bikes were better than 600cc bikes. Yet a lot of seasoned riders knew better. The benefits of the 600cc motor in terms of size, weight, agility often outweighed the higher power of the 1000cc, and they were simply more fun to ride - the 1000cc were way too twitchy. And over time, as motors got better, the 600cc bikes became nearly as powerful as 1000cc bikes 10-15 years prior! So it was a moving target. Having had the chance and budget to ride both, I settled on a 675cc Triumph Street Triple - my favorite bike, and a much better ride to my tastes than the larger Speed Triple.

In high school, I never understood why someone would only order an 8oz drink at Starbucks. "But the 12oz or 16oz hardly costs more!". Bigger is better, right? As I got into craft coffee, you quickly realize how espresso to milk ratio completely changes the drink, how you need more sugar for a flavored drink to taste right at larger sizes and you want to avoid too much dairy/sugar, etc. Today my favorite drink is the 4oz Cortado (2 shots of espresso + 2oz steamed milk).

What is the point of story time with Filmguy? It's that bigger isn't better and many times less is more, but the mass market tends to think bigger is better and more is more.

Mind-trip: What if FF is not better than M43 across the board? What is M43 is "better" in a number of ways? Many professionals who choose M43 know this. It seems funny to me that people would think $2500 is too much for a M43 camera when you can get a FF camera for the same price. Well, that's one assuming that FF is better, when it is only different.

Like 600cc and 1000cc motorcycles, M43 image quality is starting to reach equilibrium with larger format sensors for most use cases. Sure, if you need 8K and super lowlight, go FF. But do you? Or would your work benefit more from the inherent advantages of M43? For me, the latter is often true.

I love my S1H, but I need way more ND stopping power outdoors with FF, and that can strain the image quality by having to crank VNDs up, or strain the workflow by needing multiple NDs. I can hardly keep anything in focus shooting too open on FF, and by the time I stop down to something reasonable to work with, I am not getting DoF that M43 can't offer at f/2.0-f/2.8. The GH5s can handle lowlight roughly as well as the S1H and pushing much further doesn't look so professional anyway, so what is the point?

I could go on, but M43 has a many advantages that make it *better* than FF in a number of scenarios (the crop factor can be a big advantage at times; it's much more fun to shoot with because I am more creative and agile, it's more discreet and so I often can find myself snagging more authentic feeling content, etc.). It's true that M43 image quality was really lacking in comparison to larger formats years ago, but the GH5 still looks fantastic when handled right - I've used GH5 footage with a Milvus on a speed booster side by side EVA1 and S1H footage and people could not discern the difference. Even if an eagle eyed DP like some of us here complain about some digitized processing on the GHx, the Pocket 4K proved how capable a smaller sensor was in terms of mojo and a less digital organic look. I am hopefully the new sensor and processing on the GH6 will put out some really, really beautiful footage.

I suggest it's time we stop thinking of FF > M43. I am not suggesting that M43 > FF, either. Rather, I am suggesting they are unique tools with different pros/cons. Much like a 600cc vs 1000cc motorcycle or a 4oz Cortado vs a 12oz Latte. One is not better than the other, they merely emphasize different things.

Precisely. No sensor size is better. They are just different and all have pros and cons. When looking for a stills camera I absolutely did not want FF. I find it way too limiting without much gain over APS-C. Resolution wise a lot of FF cameras have the same resolution as APS-C. I absolutely hate how limiting telephoto is for FF. Just seems like a huge step backwards for me coming from m43 where I could easily reach so much more. The industry seems obsessed with wide angle but I love telephoto. I love to get candid shots when nobody realizes I'm shooting or even there. When we transitioned from video cameras to DSLR the industry as a whole really saw a decline in telephoto video work. To me m43 was always that perfect balance between video camera and FF DSLR.

The whole FF sensor thing was more of a marketing spin to sell more expensive cameras. The sensors were purposely designed so FF could be more sensitive and provide more dynamic range but that didn't always have to be the case. Its about the size of each pixel and not the size of the sensor itself.

DOF is also a subjective factor and no type of DOF is better than the other. In fact many shots in Hollywood are not only s35mm but stopped down to f2.8, f4 or sometimes f5.6. Lenses have a sweet spot around f4 or f5.6. They are also easier for focus puller to nail focus. I'm not entirely sure where this notion of razor thin DOF became the "film look" so many desire. The film look is turning on the TV and seeing s35mm shots at f4 and typically not FF at f1.4.

What precisely is making people want FF? Because its there? Because they want to shoot without lights? Because they believe the myth that the DOF is better?

FF to me creates more complications than it solves.

[Thomas Smet]

FF is a stills format that happened to be ported to the video world because of economies of scale and the quest for resolution by the camera makers. I do not think many in the video community ever asked for FF, they just got it in the bodies that were being made that created the best images. We need a new metric like noise per DOF unit that is agnostic of format to judge camera image quality. This would lower the turf wars and put the emphasis on sensor and processing quality rather than just pixel size.

I am confident the GH6 will have image quality that rivals the S-series if they let it compete which is what we are waiting around for right? I don't think we will see one on store shelves until 2022, which will be a long time to wait. Hopefully I am wrong and it will appear in Oct/Nov.

We also never really asked to have stills resolution on a video camera. All of that just came along for the ride. The A7S and GH5S are the first DSLR type cameras that kind of made sense for video only shooters. How many actually use their cameras as a hybrid tool? I love shooting stills but I think I'm kind of the exception. Thats also why I finally said screw it and went the two body route. m43 P4k for video and Canon M6 for stills. I will gladly trade in the M6 for a GH6 however if it delivers. I may even trade in the P4k if I find raw to not have much value for me over 10bit log. I much prefer to use Braw vs V-log L now but if Panasonic can fix V-log I'm in.

The holy grail is going to be 8k. Thats when the video resolution and stills resolution will finally align perfectly. If a 8000 wide sensor can deliver decent stills quality then it can do the same for video. No more farting around. We can easily export 4k or 2k from that as desired. The cameras could also do that in camera for those that really don't need 8k. The point is no more messing around with sensor resolution conversions. We love the concept of a 1:1 sensor like the A7S and GH5S but we hate the limitation of 10 MP sensors when it comes to stills. This is when hybrids will truly be perfect hybrids. The S5 has great video and stills but its FF and I don't really want FF. I actually want m43 or at the very least S35mm/APS-C. I find little to no value in having a FF camera. Almost everything I would use it for can be done with m43 or APS-C.

[jdv]

Lack of cheap fast wide primes? Huh? m43 has just as many as any other lens mount and may in fact actually have a lot more. Plus we can adapt any lens that may be missing. I can't think of a single lack of wide fast prime that can be used with m43. Heck we even have f0.95 primes which I may add compete with f1.8 on FF in terms of DOF.

Name them. I'll wait.

OK, wait over. Affordable fast wide primes don't exist. I know. I've been looking for them for more than half a decade.

So to recap, Panasonic does not make an affordable 12mm or wider 1.8 or faster lens. Neither does Olympus... who are now bankrupt so probably not too likely to see them put one out.

And about nobody else does either. Sure, there's a million and one fast affordable lens that can be adapted, but very very few at 12mm or wider.

And none that are actually native to the format.

So yes, it is absolutely fair to suggest that when the only major player left in the format is not putting out the type of lens desperately needed to attract new buyers means that they're not exactly all in. And it's fair to say that many of the upgrades for the GH5II should have been firmware updates years ago, and certainly should happen now.

Come on man - do you really think it's out of bounds to ask Panasonic to give the thousands of GH5 owners the ability to re-size the vectorscope?

Regardless, they certainly aren't going to sell a mountain of GH5II's for $1700....

...As indicated by the zero people here who've pre-ordered one. On a forum named after a Panasonic. In a thread with more than 60 pages. Which was the question originally posed.

[Ron Evans]

JDV I have come to the conclusion that you want more for less money from a company that is going to stay in business and be profitable ? How are they going to do that. Also you would like them to keep updating firmware free. Love to see your business model. I suppose you give everything you do away free to your clients.

[Thomas Smet]

Name them. I'll wait.

OK, wait over. Affordable fast wide primes don't exist. I know. I've been looking for them for more than half a decade.

So to recap, Panasonic does not make an affordable 12mm or wider 1.8 or faster lens. Neither does Olympus... who are now bankrupt so probably not too likely to see them put one out.

And about nobody else does either. Sure, there's a million and one fast affordable lens that can be adapted, but very very few at 12mm or wider.

And none that are actually native to the format.

So yes, it is absolutely fair to suggest that when the only major player left in the format is not putting out the type of lens desperately needed to attract new buyers means that they're not exactly all in. And it's fair to say that many of the upgrades for the GH5II should have been firmware updates years ago, and certainly should happen now.

Come on man - do you really think it's out of bounds to ask Panasonic to give the thousands of GH5 owners the ability to re-size the vectorscope?

Regardless, they certainly aren't going to sell a mountain of GH5II's for $1700....

...As indicated by the zero people here who've pre-ordered one. On a forum named after a Panasonic. In a thread with more than 60 pages. Which was the question originally posed.

Dude you need to better clarify what you are talking about. Wider than 12mm is not wide. Its ultra wide.

Panasonic has a Leica 12mm f1.4. Yeah it costs $1,300 but this is a very unique lens for people to use. Most of us don't really need that. Plus optically its a very good lens so you get what you pay for.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...12mm_f1_4.html

Is 10.5mm f0.95 wide and fast enough for you?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._0_95_m43.html

How about 7.5mm f2 for $499

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...m_f_2_mft.html

Should I keep going? What exactly is affordable to you? To some people the above lenses are affordable. If I really needed 12mm f1.4 I would happily pay $1,300 to get it. I'm personally not a huge fan of shooting that wide due to distortion but hey whatever. The 10.5mm f0.95 is really wide and fast. If that is something you really must have that price is not bad at all.

Then we also have the option of using a Metabones. The sigma 18-35 with a Metabones is 12mm f1.2 on the wide end. Sigma has a 14mm f1.8 lens that becomes a 10mm f1.2. Yeah its pricey but I'm not sure what you want for a low cost or how wide you really need to go.

How about this. With a Metabones it becomes a 11.36mm f1.4. Lens is only $299. You can get a cheap Viltrox adapter since it has no electronic control. Thats a 11.36mm f1.4 lens for under $500.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ide_angle.html

Then this would give you 10mm f1.4 on the wide end.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...m_f_2_pro.html

Finally Tokina has a 11-16mm f2.8 for $399. With a Metabones thats 8mm f2.0.

I'm also using the 0.71x Metabones for these. You could potentially use the 0.64x version for even wider and an extra 1/3 stop if you absolutely must. That Tokina could be 7mm f1.8.

There are only a handful of obscure lenses that could potentially go wider and brighter on a FF body. Without going fisheye that is. Plus f2.8 is f2.8 no matter what sensor it is used on. The ultra wide FF lenses tend to be slower which means higher ISO. Maybe the FF body can handle that and maybe it cannot. Thats why I say over 90% of the DOF, FOV and brightness can be duplicated across the three main sensor sizes. It's only the extremes where FF has a width advantage but m43 has a telephoto advantage.

Don't mistake what your unique needs for a lens are over what we all want. Myself and many others have very interest in such a lens which is likely why nobody has ever made one. Even 12mm starts to become a meh for a lot of people and more of a specialty lens for rare circumstances.


Again you don't know what the processing power can handle on the GH5. firmware is not like a programming language and OS on an iPhone. It is not an endless tool to write whatever software one wants to write. Plus like I said the camera is old now. No camera gets firmware updates after a certain point unless there is a critical bug reason to do so. It costs a lotto money to maintain and update firmware across many camera bodies. I'm a software developer and I know. At some point it just is not feasible to support it anymore. At some point the limitation of the firmware may be reached as well. Just because you want a certain feature doesn't mean Panasonic is evil to not give it to you. I realize that is frustrating but again you don't know what can and cannot be done with he firmware or what the resource impact is for Panasonic.