GH5 Any regrets buying gh5 in light of A7(3)

B

bzz

Active member
HI there,
In light of new Sony cam. just wondering if anyone planning to sell or regret purchase. I have just ordered gh5s and gh5 owner but had to think about it this time. The ability to punch in while recording is a big thing for me to check focus (I don't have external monitor) and prob. made me think twice but I have have gone in heavy on glass so decided that between both gh5 models I will get by..... The time limit is still an issue for Sony and the IBIS is not as good but there seems to be a whole lot in the a7 (3).....
Any thoughts?
Barry
 
It's really the possibility of an A7IIIs that would make me consider switching. If Sony made a full frame camera with video features and price comparable to the GH5/s, then any rational person would have to strongly consider it.

As it is, based on what I know about the A7III, there are just too many limitations. I'd have to give-up too many of the video features that make using the GH-line so convenient.
 
Advantage to GH5S are no recording timelimit, UHD and DCI 60P recording for a few advantages and higher recording data rates too. Those would seal it for me. What is the A7 3 battery life recording UHD to both SD cards ? I use peaking and touch focus on my GH5 and even checking on an external monitor I do not think I could get it any better.
 
Specs never tell the full story and user experience to me matters more than any specs out there. The GH5 could be a HD only camera and I would likely still use it over Sony because of how well Panasonic designed their cameras from the very start with video cameras in mind. No other DSLR company even comes close to replicating the user experience of a traditional video camera. Plus I can't stand the look of Sony cameras so they can throw all the specs in the world at it and unless they ditch that Sony look it just isn't going to happen.

I'm not saying Sony cameras can't produce nice results but I just don't want to use the camera no matter how many cool specs they have. Sony could pay me and I still wouldn't want to force myself to use their cameras.

I will gladly point out the faults of m43 and Panasonic and don't hold back but to this day I still find their cameras to provide an overall better user experience and level fo comfort. When you have to shoot a lot that stuff matters.
 
The A7III is very nice.

For me the GH5 and GH5s are still the King. No other camera has 4k 60p or 10bit recording, or 5k for that matter.

I don't know much about the A7III. It looks to be quite good with a large battery, amazing low light, amazing auto focus, high dynamic range. However I'd rather have the GH5 features. It really comes down to that in the end. What you want out of your camera. I think Sony will give us 4k 60p soon, but I don't think they'll give us 10bit for a long time.

I stay with Panasonic as they always seem to be ahead in terms of pure image quality. That is for video. When it comes to stills the A7III crushes Panasonic.
 
I was worried I might, but no. The m43 sensor size is becoming less and less of a true drawback.

The GH5 line - especially now with the GH5s as an option - has way more going for it if you account for all measurables.
 
I have seen many posts either touting that a camera can do 60p or complaining that a camera cannot shoot in 60p. Out of curiosity, what content are you all shooting in 60p? What clients are wanting 60p? I am lucky enough to work often, do a wide variety of work, and do work for a lot of different clients. I will regularly do work for 10 different clients in a month. I don't recall there being even one job in all of 2017 where the client wanted 60p. Yet I hear others talking as if a camera not being able to record in 60p is a deal-breaker for them and it is unforgivable for a camera today to lack 60p capability.
 
It of course always depends on the work...those filming music videos, fashion films, commercials/promos, business vids, events, weddings, etc. will always find a way to incorporate high speed frames, and it is honestly necessary IMO. We always hear clients "love it", but it's actually more for my mental sake, ha. The creative options in the edit are ideal.

If I filmed interviews all day - every day - I would not be affected by the lack of 60p, but I truly require slow-motion probably literally every shoot (even if it's just one clip).
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
It of course always depends on the work...those filming music videos, fashion films, commercials/promos, business vids, events, weddings, etc. will always find a way to incorporate high speed frames, and it is honestly necessary IMO. We always hear clients "love it", but it's actually more for my mental sake, ha. The creative options in the edit are ideal.

If I filmed interviews all day - every day - I would not be affected by the lack of 60p, but I truly require slow-motion probably literally every shoot (even if it's just one clip).
Click to expand...


I'm confused. Are you saying that you shoot with a base-rate of 60p for slow-mo? Or are you saying that when shooting with a base-rate of 24p you sometimes shoot at 60fps ( which, on the Fs7, is automatically conformed to the 24p base-rate timeline ).

When I said I don't have clients wanting 60p I meant that I don't have clients wanting a base-rate of 60p. And I interpreted the whinging about "lack of 60p" to mean lack of a 60p base-rate. I read people saying that they wanted 60p for youtube and speaking as if 60p is the optimal frame rate for youtube content.

A 60p base-rate capability isn't necessary for slow-motion. Or am I incorrect in that?
 
Oh, that's a good point.

Personally, I assume 99% of camera operators would like 50p/60p for slow-motion (editing in 24p/25p/30p). Most cameras cannot over-crank internally so you shoot 1080/60p, 4K/60p, etc. and conform in post as you know. I think there are individuals who actually need 60p for certain jobs like sports (I have before), but I think most would like the option for slow-motion so it needs to be available in the camera one way or another (variable base/project HFR vs. normal).
 
Also, if you're working in a 4K timeline, mixing in the 1080 HFR really shows, especially if you're working with super high resolution footage. The difference is very obvious hence the 4K/60p request at the bare minimum moving forward in 2018. But hey...if you don't need it, you don't need it.
 
Cary Knoop said:
Sony advertises an HDR workflow for video while this camera is only 8 bit, that, in my opinion, is ludicrous and questions their credibility.
Click to expand...

Gary

Just saying...

I think there is a little bit of misunderstanding as to exactly how the video HDR data pipeline is constructed. The highest VESA SMPTE standard the 1000 NIT standard of 99% ITU-R BT.709 and 90% DCI-P3 D65 (SMPTE RP 431-2) is based on 8-bit drivers as are the 600 and 400 tiers below it. It is the HDR display that applies a 2-bit algorithm to simulate a 10-bit image. You cannot put a 10-bit stream through an 8-bit processing IC and deliver 10-bit on the output. A crude analogy would be to say take an 8-bit 4:2:2 camera output and record it into a 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes file and yes you do have a 10-bit stream but its internal data is comprised of an 8-bit data mapped to a 10-bit bucket.

PC displays today commonly utilize 6-bit drivers and attempt to simulate 8-bit quality through a dithering algorithm. As the HDR standards sit true 8-bit performance is required in all existing Display HDR tiers. For Display HDR 600 and 1000 tiers 10-bit performance is achieved by using full 8-bit drivers with 2-bit dithering algorithms at a minimum. The HDR pipeline is built on an 8-bit foundation. 10-bit HDR is a construct at the display panel. If you feed an 8-bit processing IC a 10-bit signal it gets down-sampled to 8-bit. The 10-bit display image you watch is a 10-bit algorithm up conversion of the 8-bit stream. I don’t think Sony see any commercial value in their consumer and ‘prosumer’ range offering anything better than 8-bit HDR as 8-bit is the basis of the HDR standard in HDR-10. Sony's implementation of 8-bit HDR avoids the increase in data payloads and the processing heat generated in a 10-bit pipeline and I feel pretty sure that is why they are sticking with it. Dolby’s HDR is another discussion as manufactures have to buy into that unlike HDR-10. All is explained in the current HDR VESA standards at:

https://www.vesa.org/vesa-standards/

If you don’t want to bother going to the trouble of down loading you can find more info here on the 8-bit nature of HDR:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12144/vesa-announces-displayhdr-spec-and-tiers

You will have to register to download from the VESA library. If you do register the PDF you need that covers all of the HDR specs is titled "DisplayHDR CTS (The Standard)"

Chris Young
 
Last edited:
Every single authority without exception states that 10-bit is the absolute minimum for finishing in HDR. I tend to trust Alexis Van Hurkman and Mystery Box, as they actually work with HDR. The VESA standards are virtually meaningless. Almost any monitor in existence could qualify as HDR according to their standards.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/hdr.htm#displayhdr
 
Last edited:
Saying HDR is ok with 8bit is like saying a hamburger without the meat is still just as good. I will pass on the bun salad and I will always, always, always pass on an 8bit only camera when dealing with log and HDR. 8bit is cute for the iPhone and Instagram teens. The rest of us adults use 10bit.
 
cyvideo said:
Gary

Just saying...
Click to expand...

Chris, the VESA standards are primarily aimed at small lcd displays and laptops with global backlights. The UHD Alliance Premium certification standard is 10 bit depth. Anybody who has graded 8 bit camera footage for HDR knows firsthand the problem of contouring lines (banding) which is very obvious anywhere there are smooth gradients such as a blue sky or a white wall.
 
I shoot for me and like the smooth motion of 60P and do not like the motion of slow frame rates. So for me its a must have on any camera. As I get older the judder of slower frame rates upsets me more and more. I make DVD and Bluray that are interlaced too so going from 60P to interlace is easy too.
 
What I fail to understand is how someone can be so condescending toward filmmakers who shoot in 60p, whether for YouTube or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top