How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

[NorBro]

Nice that you now agree with some of us. How many of these cameras you have mentioned have continuous autofocus and IBIS ?

What do you mean now agree with some of us? About what and why do you say it that way like you're implying something?

None have continuous autofocus and IBIS, but what kind of silly question is that, especially when you know the aforementioned are simply cinema cameras and not Japanese stills cameras that shoot video, and also because Panasonic has terrible AF? (Yes, even in 60p. If you disagree then I'm afraid maybe your eyes aren't seeing it or you don't have enough experience to notice it. Try a bokeh test with some lights in the background and you'll see the circles shrinking and growing; this is common knowledge.)

As you may know (or maybe not), all cameras are missing something. You can ask a bunch of questions to the Panasonics as well. Where was the full-frame? Where's the RAW? Where's another cinema camera besides 3 in the last 10 years? Where's the uncropped full-frame 4K/60p? Where's a second generation of V-Log?

I will always love Panasonic and their cameras, but the fact of the matter is they aren't as cutting edge as some may think. They do a lot of great things but certainly not cutting edge.

And anyone who thinks so is simply oblivious to what type of technology and hardware exists in the world.

[Ron Evans]

First sentence in your reply. "Cutting edge really depends on one's perspective and experience." Which is what some of us have been saying for while. But you insist in mentioning autofocus then give examples of cameras that have none. You are not consistent. We are saying from our perspective and experience we do not need nor want it for all sorts of reasons. If a camera had good autofocus I would still turn if off for what I do. Nothing to do with perspective but is experience. I started shooting film in the early 1960's for your information. People buy cameras for what they can do for them not the list of features they have that may or may not be of any value to their application. As I said I bought the GH5 when it came out for just one feature. It could record UHD 60P for the lowest cost at the time. No interest in any of the other features certainly not autofocus or any still's capability. i will make my next purchase again on the things I want. Not features the camera has that I do not want or will use. Yes I understand your perspective that to be successful Panasonic has to compete with all the others for features etc. i just do not happen to agree with you., Especially as the examples you give have none of the features you say Panasonic lacks. By the way my GH5S can shoot RAW either Prores RAW to Ninja V or BRAW to VA 12G.

[NorBro]

First of all...reliable AF was barely even a thought back then when I provided my cutting edge examples. But you wouldn't know any better so instead you say I'm inconsistent.

The first and only camera that you could start to trust was Canon's 70D in 2013 with the introduction of DPAF but the technology wasn't perfected in other systems until about half a decade after.

Secondly, yes, Panasonic lacked everything I mentioned. It's great they now have external RAW recording like every other camera under the sun but my examples were from 10 years ago. And everything else I said is completely 100% accurate.

Full-frame, un-cropped, high-resolution cameras with un-cropped high-framerates are considered cutting edge by anyone who follows hardware development. The AF and IBIS are the icing on the cakes.

Thirdly, I don't care what you need or what you want; I'm not telling you to use AF or not to use AF.

[DLD]

FWIW, the new camera sales are still tanking big time, so one can expect fewer models released.

As to Panasonic, it, obviously, had to play the give-and-take game with its sensor supplier Sony and its codependents. In that sense, no recent camera with the exception of the very high end - Z9/A7RIV/A1/R5/R3 - can be considered the state of the art. Something in the middle of the pack was always crippled, so not to compete with other cameras using the very same sensor. It's not like the fully competitive car or the smartphone markets where innovations come in fast and furiously. It's a negotiated market, where the state-of-the-art is dispensed slowly and carefully. And it's getting pretty close to simply withering on the vine.

[Thomas Smet]

Raw is not for everyone. It alone does not make a camera great. I like it for my own bizarre experimental reasons from my VFX past but outside of that its a massive overkill for most people shooting video today. Heck a lot of my keying is now live HD 4:2:0 compressed down to webcam video standards in OBS for streaming. I have used a P4k and GH4 for the source for that and both equally capable. If one cannot pull a darn good key from 10bit 4:2:2 4k I can tell you the format is not the problem.

Raw is nice to save butts for sloppy shooting but it absolutely is not a must for exceptionally beautiful quality. Maybe its because I'm so used to shooting it right but I never take advantage of those extra lazy benefits of raw like changing ISO or white balance in post. Its not rocket science to do either correctly to not need to change them.

My entire reason for wanting to keep the P4k for raw is to have 4:4:4 and 12bit in a format thats much smaller than what ProRes4444 would be. Again thats only for my own weird reasons. I have pulled near perfect keys from 4k 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 for years. I know I don't need 4:4:4. I just like to have it for my own obsession and scientific study of image processing. Its a 100% nerd thing for me.

If the GH6 doesn't have external raw it doesn't need to hurt the value of the camera in any way shape or form. Most users avoided external 10bit for a decade because they found using an external recording annoying and cumbersome. Thats not going to suddenly change just because its now raw video. If one truly "needs" raw video they should get a proper raw camera and stop trying to fart around with a hybrid camera.

External raw is a hot mess. I again only want it on my R6 because I want to do nerdy things with it. With that said I would only do nerdy things in Fusion which as of right now is impossible for ProResRaw without converting to ProRes4444 first. So its actually almost worthless to me over just shooting raw 4k on a $1,300 P4k which has smaller files that can be directly and instantly used in Fusion for complex VFX composites.. Its kind of odd to me to have raw that can only be used in FCP or Motion which are generally pretty horrible for any kind of complex VFX work. Now that I say it out loud or at least write it I'm not entirely sure what I would actually use external ProResRaw for on the R6. Another reason for me to just keep the P4k for now.

[NorBro]

That's an entirely different conversation...

When this conversation turned "cutting edge", I mentioned it because it's always going to be one of those things at the top of the list, especially when a government grants patents for it.

In general, after it was decided that the GH5 will kick the 10-bit 4K spec party off several years ago (maybe to some it was the Samsung NX1, although 8-bit, but no one remembers it), which also included 4K/60p over a small chip, Canon and Sony's roadmap only concerned APS-C and FF sensors and the next few years became a wheel of fortune circus mixed with sensor crops, 8-bit, different formats, different IBIS and digital IS systems, color sciences, and several major AF improvements.

The old Blackmagic cameras used to have CinemaDNG but they were forced to remove it.

I hope the GH6 is announced ASAP just for the sake of this thread.

[DLD]

NX-1 had HEVC/H265 back in 2015 about two and a half years before GH-5 came out, which was the state of the art back in 2015. That alone eliminates GH-5 as being the state of the art in 2017. Panasonic came out with HEVC much later, by which point, one could officially strip the state-of-the-art title from the codec. And the bit rate wasn't the state-of-the-art either.

One could nitpick further. As I had posted here, missing certain features doesn't make a camera unusable and, depending on what it has an at what price, it may still be a great value in its niche.

PS. The Olympus MFT models, which took up the stills side visavis Panasonic's preference for video, have a pixel shift high resolution mode for stills. Panasonic, which emplys the same Sony sensors, only has it in G9. GH-5 wasn't quite artsy enough to get the feature.

[stoneinapond]

.... just for the sake of this thread.

[Thomas Smet]

NX-1 had HEVC/H265 back in 2015 about two and a half years before GH-5 came out, which was the state of the art back in 2015. That alone eliminates GH-5 as being the state of the art in 2017. Panasonic came out with HEVC much later, by which point, one could officially strip the state-of-the-art title from the codec. And the bit rate wasn't the state-of-the-art either.

One could nitpick further. As I had posted here, missing certain features doesn't make a camera unusable and, depending on what it has an at what price, it may still be a great value in its niche.

PS. The Olympus MFT models, which took up the stills side visavis Panasonic's preference for video, have a pixel shift high resolution mode for stills. Panasonic, which emplys the same Sony sensors, only has it in G9. GH-5 wasn't quite artsy enough to get the feature.

I don't know many that bought the GH5 that did so for HEVC. Thats not what made it popular at all or a highly desired feature with a lot of users. It was the exceptionally good looking h.264 10bit 4:2:2 internal codec that delivered very close to ProRes quality in 150 mbps with a pretty solid log format.

HEVC on its own is not a guarantee of great quality. Its just a means to get good quality in a smaller size. h264 is still a solid format and I would never in a million years judge a cameras "state of the art" solely on it having HEVC vs h264. Can we stop using "state of the art" as well. Thats a cheap informercial term to hood wink the ignorant. Its typically only used to sell products by a marketing team that has no creativity to find a more clever way to market a product.

[DLD]

HEVC outperforms H264 per given bit rate/file size, which is a major reason the new 8K (consumer/lower end pro tiers) cameras offer it. The HEVC absence doesn't turn GH-5 into an unworthy camera but excludes it from being named in state-of-the art category for the product released in the second half of the second decade of the Twenty First century.

And, within the same niche, Pocket 4K has been offering Raw recording, and at a lower price to boot. This doesn't mean GH-5's H264 can't look good but many think 150 Mbps isn't all that great either.

[Ron Evans]

Well of course the original GH5 does record HEVC it just happens to be restricted to 24P or 30P HLG. Admittedly it was not in the original firmware but is since I think ver 2.0.

[Thomas Smet]

HEVC outperforms H264 per given bit rate/file size, which is a major reason the new 8K (consumer/lower end pro tiers) cameras offer it. The HEVC absence doesn't turn GH-5 into an unworthy camera but excludes it from being named in state-of-the art category for the product released in the second half of the second decade of the Twenty First century.

And, within the same niche, Pocket 4K has been offering Raw recording, and at a lower price to boot. This doesn't mean GH-5's H264 can't look good but many think 150 Mbps isn't all that great either.

There is no such thing as state of the art. Its a made up marketing term by lazy people.

You keep saying it excludes the GH5 from your made up marketing term but when the GH5 came out nobody could give a darn about HEVC. Sales and buzz are what matter and the GH5 was a breakthrough camera that blew away almost every other option out there. Thats why so many bought it and used it a lot. It wasn't just hype either. Many bought it and loved it so much they kept it even though the bought into newer more expensive cameras.

By your definition a piece of garbage camera that only shoots 720p but has HEVC would be a better camera which makes absolutely no sense.

My Canon R6 shoots HEVC for its 10bit and I honestly don't really care. I would have been equally happy if it was 10bit h264. It means so little to the overall ability of the camera itself. Sure it has some advantages. I'm not an idiot I realize that. My point is very few have an issue with the quality good h264 can provide.

The criticism of the 150 mbps is largely unfounded and a placebo effect of people getting hung up on specs. Many of the same people that criticized 150 mbps also couldn't find and real visual difference between the 400 mbps all-I or when they did record externally to ProRes. There are those claiming 150 mbps wasn't enough and then there are those that compared 150 mbps, 400mbps and ProRes side by side and couldn't tell a difference. Thats why some or many of the 150 mbps criticism was likely fueled by spec driven reasons. People saw a number and just felt it was low. There are also a large amount of P4k users that insist Braw looks much better than ProRes on the same camera. If you shoot both and compare its almost impossible to see a difference. If one shoots Braw, converts to ProRes and compares those versions its also almost impossible to see a difference. People want to think bitrates matter and that is makes a difference. They want to still think codecs make a huge difference when the reality is for many years now they really don't all that much. I'm 1000x more concerned about the lack of OLPF on the GH5 and how it scales down the full sensor in camera on the fly to 4k video than I am about the actual codec used. As long as values are equal of course such as 10bit and 4:2:2. I personally feel one of the biggest mistakes BMD makes is not using a OLPF. I love my P4k but the lack of OLPF really bothers me. Canon R6 does have a OLPF and despite not having raw I feel it gets more accurate detail. Maybe not as razor sharp but razor sharpness is typically a very bad thing for an array of pixels.

[Ron Evans]

Of course the GH5S has OLPF and is mostly pixel for pixel at the aspect ratios it shoots. Having both GH5 and GH5S I can confirm the image from the GH5S is better. I am not trying to say these are the greatest cameras today. But desired improvements in these for me are not a lot and most are in the GH5M2. I would just like a 6K version of the GH5M2 !!

[OnSet]

Of course the GH5S has OLPF and is mostly pixel for pixel at the aspect ratios it shoots. Having both GH5 and GH5S I can confirm the image from the GH5S is better. I am not trying to say these are the greatest cameras today. But desired improvements in these for me are not a lot and most are in the GH5M2. I would just like a 6K version of the GH5M2 !!

And I'd like an upgrade to the GH5S that features the selective eye focus of the FX9, along with increased dynamic range (and V-Log rather than V-Log-L) and an oversampled sensor (as in the EVA1 - although oversampling a 6k sensor might work fine.) Of course I'd also like to be able to make timecode synchronization easier than with the GH5S, and ability to get the wysiwyg color/gamma closer to the EVA1. And a slightly larger battery would not be a bad idea -- something that can continuous roll for 2 hours...

Just a wish list.

[Zim]

[QUOTE=Ron Evans;n5681914]

Are you suggesting the others do not have to compete ? What is the Apple competition . The iPhone ? All camera manufacturers have that competition.

Yes, I think the iPhone is competition for all of them. First, the iPhone takes really good video and pictures. It doesn't cost much to put a mic, gimbal etc on them now.
I would say the real competition is people who want to get into films or YouTube stuff who might not be able to buy a new Panasonic, Sony or Canon. First you spend $2000 or more for the camera, then spend maybe $800 or $1,000 for one good lens. Add a mic, lights, gimbal etc and you have a lot invested.
If you already have a bag full of lenses, and other gear, or you are already in the wedding business for example it is a whole different thing.

Panasonic made some nice improvements on the GH5II, but they should not have raised the price . ($1,200 range would be more like it), or they should have just released the GH6 with the AF and some of the other things fixed for under $2,000. Even that is too high.

I still have the GH3. The GH5II would be a huge upgrade, but the $1695 price tag was to much for me. $2500 for a GH6 is more than I want to spend right now.

Back to Apple, yes they are taking away many people who might have bought a regular camera. Like I said mobile filmmaking and photography is getting better and cheaper. I'm sure it is causing second thoughts for the Japanese camera companies.