GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

[NorBro]

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.

 

[DLD]

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.

 

[DLD]

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.

 

[ahalpert]

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

 

[Zim]

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?

 

[Thomas Smet]

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.

 

[DLD]

With the manufacturing cost differences narrowing - how about a $4,000 medium format body? - the industry has moved toward full frame as the dominant sensor size. But, had the cartel allowed Olympus or Panasonic to make a 42-45 MPX MFT with 8K video for $3,000, would it not undermine their entire lineups? Or would the consumer skip it and go for R5 and its full frame technology and shallow DOF? And the answer is we don't know. And we're unlikely to find out any time soon either.

PS. There's an alleged 8K Fuji APS-C model coming out in 2022 (the Fuji Rumors page has been pretty accurate in the past). So, that's pretty close to what GH-6 could have been like.

https://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm...d-price-comparison-with-sony-a1-and-canon-r5/

 

[Thomas Smet]

With the manufacturing cost differences narrowing - how about a $4,000 medium format body? - the industry has moved toward full frame as the dominant sensor size. But, had the cartel allowed Olympus or Panasonic to make a 42-45 MPX MFT with 8K video for $3,000, would it not undermine their entire lineups? Or would the consumer skip it and go for R5 and its full frame technology and shallow DOF? And the answer is we don't know. And we're unlikely to find out any time soon either.

PS. There's an alleged 8K Fuji APS-C model coming out in 2022 (the Fuji Rumors page has been pretty accurate in the past). So, that's pretty close to what GH-6 could have been like.

https://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm...d-price-comparison-with-sony-a1-and-canon-r5/

42MP 8k m43 sensor would be a horrible idea and people would have likely hated it. I have a Canon M6 Mk2 here which is APSC with 32MP and thats already pushing it too much. Make each photosite too small and the sensitivity suffers.

Now some actually like that and there is this new belief that maybe more pixels is actually better when it comes to stills and printing. I watched a test where large prints were made from a A7S at 12MP and a 45MP camera. In every print the 45MP image looked better because of the extra detail. To be fair grain looks great in a print and we don't have compression fudging it up to worry about like we do in video.

Still its hard to deny the GH5S has low light and signal to noise advantages over the GH5 and thats only going from 10 MP to 20 MP. Pushing it to 45 MP would be making m43 a laughable format for low light. Noise would look horrible at ISO 800. It would essentially only have any kind of use with careful lighting. Some would like that for film making it would be really cool to have 8k. for others it would be much worse than the GH5 already is for shooting in the dark and it would not sell very well at all. Heck most don't even use the 6k (5k) mode on the GH5 even though technically its better. The M6 actually has an interesting 5k raw burst mode that can shoot 3 seconds of 30p video. Looks stunning but rather useless at 3 seconds a pop.

The Canon R6 has 20MP and the R5 has 45MP and 8k video. There are some that still greatly prefer the R6 for photos and video because it has less noise and 4k video still makes more sense for 99% of users. Not everyone wants or has any need for 8k video right now. Same for 45 MP photos. Thats a tad overkill for most uses even on a professional level. Its cool Canon has both options but I would not like it if the R5 was the only option.

 

[ahalpert]

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.

Right, but if you're not trying to match DOF or light-gathering, then you can still get a smaller package with similar range and quality. I'm thinking for the folks who talk about how many lenses and cameras they can fit in a carry-on.

For example, the Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 is

Dimensions (ø x L)	2.66 x 2.91" / 67.6 x 73.8 mm
Weight	10.76 oz / 305 g

the Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8 is

Dimensions (ø x L)	3.48 x 4.95" / 88.5 x 125.7 mm
Weight	1.98 lb / 900 g

HUGE difference! 3x the weight

And let's check out the MTF charts. It looks like performance is comparable




note that canon is showing 10 and 30 lppmm while panasonic is showing 20 and 40

 

[Thomas Smet]

Right, but if you're not trying to match DOF or light-gathering, then you can still get a smaller package with similar range and quality. I'm thinking for the folks who talk about how many lenses and cameras they can fit in a carry-on.

For example, the Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 is

Dimensions (ø x L)	2.66 x 2.91" / 67.6 x 73.8 mm
Weight	10.76 oz / 305 g

the Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8 is

Dimensions (ø x L)	3.48 x 4.95" / 88.5 x 125.7 mm
Weight	1.98 lb / 900 g

HUGE difference! 3x the weight

And let's check out the MTF charts. It looks like performance is comparable




note that canon is showing 10 and 30 lppmm while panasonic is showing 20 and 40

Totally agree and many lenses are still smaller.

I feel like we are in a Twilight Zone now where you are now defending m43 and I am not. lol

 

[ahalpert]

.

I feel like we are in a Twilight Zone now where you are now defending m43 and I am not. lol

There's the signpost up ahead

I'd like to think that I've always maintained that there are relative advantages to each format. But for me personally, I haven't flown with my gear in several years. I don't care much about shaving a few pounds or cubic inches off my kit. I don't shoot wildlife and hardly ever need more than 200mm. But I do require ultra-wides for various reasons, and need to go as wide as possible. I also shoot a lot of dim scenes for doc or events. And wedding videography typically favors shallow DOF.

so, i personally enjoy more advantages from FF. And that's probably true for most shooters?

Happily, the readout speeds on some FF cameras have also gotten pretty good. I hate the rolling shutter effect and that was one advantage of m43. On a camera with matching technology, the m43 should still be faster. But some FF cameras have gotten fast enough that I don't feel like I need more

 

[Peter C.]

FF is viewed as a more desirable pro feature that people are willing to pay for. This measn M43 cameras have a price ceiling relative to FF equivalent.

The industry has decided FF is the future and has shifted most of their development towards FF cameras and lenses. Even people who are happy with M43 might have to switch because the latest tech will only be offered there. The GH is existing in an increasingly narrow niche. With not enough market share to justify significant R & D upgrades.

To compound Panasonic problems their AF seems to be a bigger issue than the sensor size. It's not like they could transfer better AF from another product line into the GH.

 

[Thomas Smet]

There's the signpost up ahead

I'd like to think that I've always maintained that there are relative advantages to each format. But for me personally, I haven't flown with my gear in several years. I don't care much about shaving a few pounds or cubic inches off my kit. I don't shoot wildlife and hardly ever need more than 200mm. But I do require ultra-wides for various reasons, and need to go as wide as possible. I also shoot a lot of dim scenes for doc or events. And wedding videography typically favors shallow DOF.

so, i personally enjoy more advantages from FF. And that's probably true for most shooters?

Happily, the readout speeds on some FF cameras have also gotten pretty good. I hate the rolling shutter effect and that was one advantage of m43. On a camera with matching technology, the m43 should still be faster. But some FF cameras have gotten fast enough that I don't feel like I need more

Ironically I moved to the Canon R6 specifically for travel. After years of m43 DSLR use I decided to get a APSC camera for stills and a P4k for video. Great cameras but I hated having to use two cameras for the best results. So I said screw it and went with the R6 so I have great 4k video, great 20 MP stills, great sensitivity if I need it, Great IBIS and great DPAF. A great 24-240 lens that is only 300 grams heavier than the 14-140 as well didn't hurt. So yes the setup is a tad heavier now but it can do so much more. The R6 is only 100 grams heavier than the GH4 I have. So 400 extra grams compared to the GH4 and 14-140. Thats not a ton of extra weight really. Plus the 50mm RF f1.8 is pretty compact as well. So is the 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f2 primes. Compared to the P4k its much lighter.

 

[DLD]

There are two trends at play - where the market is going and where the cartel wants the market to go. MFT is a legacy format but the battle for 8K favors FF. Additionally, a FF camera with a relatively low pixel count has the best ISO performance. And the sub-MFT market has gone to the smartphones.

But the medium format is lying in wait.

 

[JonsMovies]

Ironically I moved to the Canon R6 specifically for travel. After years of m43 DSLR use I decided to get a APSC camera for stills and a P4k for video. Great cameras but I hated having to use two cameras for the best results. So I said screw it and went with the R6 so I have great 4k video, great 20 MP stills, great sensitivity if I need it, Great IBIS and great DPAF. A great 24-240 lens that is only 300 grams heavier than the 14-140 as well didn't hurt. So yes the setup is a tad heavier now but it can do so much more. The R6 is only 100 grams heavier than the GH4 I have. So 400 extra grams compared to the GH4 and 14-140. Thats not a ton of extra weight really. Plus the 50mm RF f1.8 is pretty compact as well. So is the 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f2 primes. Compared to the P4k its much lighter.

Thomas, could you elaborate on any overheating issues you've experienced with the R6? Coming from the GH5 my biggest concerns are overheating in 4K modes and the lack of an XLR adapter/quality audio input. Otherwise, I agree that this camera checks most of my boxes and is worth considering over a potential GH6.

 

[Peter C.]

Thomas, could you elaborate on any overheating issues you've experienced with the R6? Coming from the GH5 my biggest concerns are overheating in 4K modes and the lack of an XLR adapter/quality audio input. Otherwise, I agree that this camera checks most of my boxes and is worth considering over a potential GH6.

When they first came out overheating was a big problem. Since then it has been alleviated by a software update. I do a lot of live event where I can't live with the limitation. I think it would be helpful to listen to this wedding filmmaker talk about his approach to avoid over heating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlSHO29MoWE
Comes down to the type of work you do and whether you want to be using these counter measures.

 

[NorBro]

Based on videos like the one below, overheating appears to be programmed into the camera, so you could just reset the internal battery/memory/power to reset their artificial timer (if that's what it indeed is).

Now I don't know if Canon ever coded up some FW to stop this user hack, but just FYI in general.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Thomas, could you elaborate on any overheating issues you've experienced with the R6? Coming from the GH5 my biggest concerns are overheating in 4K modes and the lack of an XLR adapter/quality audio input. Otherwise, I agree that this camera checks most of my boxes and is worth considering over a potential GH6.

So far I have not experienced it. I have not shot long form videos yet however either. I do live in AZ where it is insanely hot outside this time of year. Others have experienced it to different degrees.

Some of it is Canon being a tad too safe and shutting down the camera to make sure it doesn't suffer any damage. Yes some people have tricked it to shut down less but what long term effects will that have on the camera? We don't know. Personally I did not invest in a $2,500 body to burn it out in a few years.

More recent firmware updates have allowed the camera to not only run longer before shutting down but the cool off period is much shorter now.

Its not for everyone of course and those that shoot seminars, weddings, concerts and long live streams may want to look elsewhere. For live streams keep in mind not recording in camera helps a ton. I have a Ninja V and apparently recording to that allows one to record for hours. Makes sense because encoding video on the fly takes CPU power which generates heat. Anything that can be done to cause as much heat will help. Shooting in APSC mode seems to help as well as does 24p. Clearly 60p is the format with the biggest problem since it requires a ton more processing power. 24p is actually not that bad for most users.

If one grabs a few shots here and there, shuts down walks around a bit and then grabs a few more shots I'm not entirely sure it ever would overheat. When we hear overheats after an hour that doesn't mean an hour after being turned on. That means an hour of constant recording like an hour long wedding ceremony. I'm a bit nervous there but we shall see how it does. For any real work I would have at least two cameras anyway so if it does happen I do have the backup to use until the R6 cools down. Someday I will give it a good run and see how well it does. I was supposed to go on a cruise early September for my birthday but that got canceled due to the world ending. Since it was leaving from Florida I'm kind of glad it was canceled. I was hoping to really put the R6 through some all day shooting off and on to see how it handled. Right now I'm too busy to do that extensive of a test. I could leave it running in my house while I work but thats not exactly a good real world test either since I rarely record non stop like that. Plus I don't have AC power for it yet.

A good accurate test would be to really use it off and on all day and see how it handles. I'm pretty sure using it on an hour long wedding ceremony might push its limits. That part kind of sucks but personally I'm ok with that. I rarely shoot stuff that long anymore and I do have a Ninja V to help me out if needed.

I have now put in three feature requests for the R6 to have external ProRes Raw. Two to Atomos who have said they passed it on to their product team and one to Canon who responded as well that it was passed on. Considering the R5 just got that feature I really hope the R6 gets it as well. Raw would be awesome on this good of a camera. The other major benefit however is minimal internal processing meaning it could likely record forever.

I also requested a 1:1 pixel mode vs just a APSC hope in the hopes it would also have minimal internal processing and help heating.

Tilta also makes a cooling device thats kind of a fancy PC fan. Does make noise but I could see using it between shots to cool down the camera faster.

 

[Zim]

So any update on when the GH6 might come out or maybe new details? Almost October.

 

[NorBro]

I said NAB a few months ago but someone said an announcement was coming in September.

If not in the next few days then around NAB.