GH5 Game Over, Panasonic

Yes colour was nice but the rest was shot on a GH5 too that did not look that bad. If it had been shot on a GH5S it may have looked even closer as owning both the GH5 and GH5S the GH5S is clearly better than the GH5 for image quality. Do people not want to compare the GH5S and Pocket 4K which are rumored to use the same sensor? It is unfortunate that some of these early comparisons have been to the GH5 when the closest Panasonic is really the GH5S also with no IBIS and dual ISO. For the price difference it would make it interesting. When I look at the BMCCP4K it is fantastic for the price but does lack some things I use now with the GH5/S and would need me to always use an external SSD recorder for the long time I record as well as battery solution and so far no wireless remote control that I use all the time to control both my GH5's from tablets. Will certainly look in the future but it would be the GH5 to be replaced not the GH5S.
 
If you're a filmmaker not really interested in a profit, definitely...but simply put cheap gear has destroyed making any decent money with almost everything else for many, IMO. As far as expensive gear, totally. Even since Blackmagic's first camera in 2012 (BMCC) shooting @2.5K in RAW (ProRes is only 1080p), I think many people instantly realized it was the beginning of the end (if you were in touch with camera releases).

It wasn't the system for everyone and it had many problems, but the quality was unmatched at that point for $3K ($2K a few months after its release via a $1K price drop).

It doesn't matter how you look at it and whether you love it or hate it, $1295 for this new one is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
If you're a filmmaker not really interested in a profit, definitely...but simply put cheap gear has destroyed making any decent money with almost everything else for many, IMO. As far as expensive gear, totally. Even since Blackmagic's first camera in 2012 (BMCC) shooting @2.5K in RAW (ProRes is only 1080p), I think many people instantly realized it was the beginning of the end (if you were in touch with camera releases).

It wasn't the system for everyone and it had many problems, but the quality was unmatched at that point for $3K ($2K a few months after its release via a $1K price drop).

It doesn't matter how you look at it and whether you love it or hate it, $1295 for this new one is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
What does the price of the camera have to do with the prices we charge? If you're finding that to be the case, you're not being hired for the quality of your work. You either need to up your game or find better clients.

I remember when "desktop publishing" was the end of professional graphic design. The bottom end probably did take a hit, but quality work is still valued by quality clients.
 
It is more about the presence of media becoming a commodity than cheap cameras. Cheap cameras allow this but people just get used to having images at their fingertips. So paying for these things becomes a tougher proposition. Yes, you can seek out better clients but there is no denying that rates follow business investment.

Anyway, I am happy to see the move towards better bitrates, color space and RAW. the BM camera is a shining example of a company trying hard to make the best product. We all thought they would not be able to sustain being the low cost leader but they have. I only wish this camera had a 2nd variant with a viewfinder and IBIS. But the camera's presence alone will impact all future cameras imho.
 
Does anyone have a list of films made with the GH5? I've been debating on the GH5 or the Blackmagic 4k. I've been waiting for B&H to drop the price more on the GH5 with the 12-60 lens. So far $201 isn't close. As far as the Blackmagic goes I need to see a lot more from it. Eating batteries and computer space could be a problem.
 
NorBro said:
If you're a filmmaker not really interested in a profit, definitely...but simply put cheap gear has destroyed making any decent money with almost everything else for many,
Click to expand...

I understand exactly what you are saying. Today, filmmaking is becoming a world where you are often just pleasing yourself...and hoping others appreciate it. I see postings from people saying that they are buying a particular camera because their YouTube postings will look better. Bottom line: don't plan on making a living with your camera anymore. Cousin Freddy will shoot the wedding. The future seems to be headed for making films on the weekend to please yourself and hoping that others see value in it.
 
joe12south said:
What does the price of the camera have to do with the prices we charge? If you're finding that to be the case, you're not being hired for the quality of your work. You either need to up your game or find better clients.

I remember when "desktop publishing" was the end of professional graphic design. The bottom end probably did take a hit, but quality work is still valued by quality clients.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you haven't been working long enough in the industry (or in the bigger markets) if you're asking that question.

Graphic design is also at the lowest point it's ever been in the history of graphic design. You can buy highly detailed and complicated and intricate templates (all open to customization) for $50 bucks compared to $5,000 - $10,000 - etc. you could have charged many years ago.

The aforementioned monetary shift was clearly seen in production many years ago and had an impact on these gains and continues to do so. "Talent" can only take you so far...because in reality there are many talented individuals on here and other places that probably should be getting paid $5K+ per day just for operating a camera, but aren't and probably never will be again.

The bottom line is you don't need much talent to produce beautiful images with these cameras (it's easier and easier every year), and people will almost ALWAYS save a few bucks when it's time to make a decision.

We (people) may also have different expectations in which one may be content with $50K annually, but someone else was used to pulling in $200K, and it's only been more difficult to do so in an ever-changing industry (and world).
 
cyclone said:
I understand exactly what you are saying. Today, filmmaking is becoming a world where you are often just pleasing yourself...and hoping others appreciate it. I see postings from people saying that they are buying a particular camera because their YouTube postings will look better. Bottom line: don't plan on making a living with your camera anymore. Cousin Freddy will shoot the wedding. The future seems to be headed for making films on the weekend to please yourself and hoping that others see value in it.
Click to expand...

Yup, and cousin Freddy will shoot everything else too.

And most appreciation will be short-lived as people will have already moved onto the next piece of content and mental satisfaction besides the small percentage invested in your work (like the bride and groom above).

---

I also don't want to sound bitter because I'm not, lol.

I never did production on a full-time basis; the freelancing was just very fun at one point in life and a great side gig.
 
cyclone said:
I understand exactly what you are saying. Today, filmmaking is becoming a world where you are often just pleasing yourself...and hoping others appreciate it. I see postings from people saying that they are buying a particular camera because their YouTube postings will look better. Bottom line: don't plan on making a living with your camera anymore. Cousin Freddy will shoot the wedding. The future seems to be headed for making films on the weekend to please yourself and hoping that others see value in it.
Click to expand...

Also a pro camera doesn't mean you will make anything good. Just look at the money Hollywood spends on total crap films and TV shows.
I think its a good idea to make films to please yourself. Make music to please yourself. That is what an artist should do. With a little luck maybe make some money doing it.
 
NorBro said:
If you're a filmmaker not really interested in a profit, definitely...but simply put cheap gear has destroyed making any decent money with almost everything else for many, IMO. As far as expensive gear, totally. Even since Blackmagic's first camera in 2012 (BMCC) shooting @2.5K in RAW (ProRes is only 1080p), I think many people instantly realized it was the beginning of the end (if you were in touch with camera releases).

It wasn't the system for everyone and it had many problems, but the quality was unmatched at that point for $3K ($2K a few months after its release via a $1K price drop).

I think I have to disagree a bit here...the high end of the business do not use BMD cameras, nor do I believe cheap cameras are killing the business...an Arri Alexa in the hands of a fool will still produce a crappy image and actually in some features I watch, often do. I think advertising moving from television to the internet where no one has yet figured out how to advertise, yet it's there all the same, has take a huge chunk out of the market for the high end. I worked on an IBM campaign as an Art Director where the budget including airtime was $550 million!...and a Budweiser series where we did 28 shooting days! Features are still paying good money, and of course the better work is now moving to television and Netflix.
I think smaller cheaper cameras have opened up another market....corporate video, though truthfully not my area, so I'm really guessing here, but the loss of the advertising segment of the business to the high end side was huge. Of course there will always be some ass who will say, my son has a go pro....I'll just let him make my spot, but no one here would ever want that kind of client anyway!
Click to expand...
 
It's all open to debate...I don't really have anything else to say about it as it's pretty obvious what has happened and is happening.

But on the BM front, you'd have to consider context. Are BM cameras used in Hollywood movies as the main hardware...I would say no (or extremely seldom). But have they been used in countless productions as B/C/D units, yes. But so have 5D Mark IIs so it's all relative.

Blackmagics have also been used well in New York City (I can't speak for any other place) on the freelance scene. I don't know where you live but if you haven't seen a Blackmagic camera used on any high-end productions EVER, it's probably due to your location.

Here's a famous shot of the Mad Max (FR) selfie camera that had every BMCC user excited.

BMCC.jpg
 
cyclone said:
I understand exactly what you are saying. Today, filmmaking is becoming a world where you are often just pleasing yourself...and hoping others appreciate it. I see postings from people saying that they are buying a particular camera because their YouTube postings will look better. Bottom line: don't plan on making a living with your camera anymore. Cousin Freddy will shoot the wedding. The future seems to be headed for making films on the weekend to please yourself and hoping that others see value in it.
Click to expand...
Poppycock. The "cinematic" wedding "film" market didn't even exist before the DSLR. Cousin Freddy can't do that, no matter the camera in his phone. For every opportunity that technology eliminates, it creates multiple more.

There aren't less opportunities to make money making images, there are far more. The average price might have declined somewhat, but there's more opportunity than ever for more people to make a living, instead of just a rarified few.
 
NorBro said:
It sounds like you haven't been working long enough in the industry (or in the bigger markets) if you're asking that question.

Graphic design is also at the lowest point it's ever been in the history of graphic design. You can buy highly detailed and complicated and intricate templates (all open to customization) for $50 bucks compared to $5,000 - $10,000 - etc. you could have charged many years ago.

The aforementioned monetary shift was clearly seen in production many years ago and had an impact on these gains and continues to do so. "Talent" can only take you so far...because in reality there are many talented individuals on here and other places that probably should be getting paid $5K+ per day just for operating a camera, but aren't and probably never will be again.

The bottom line is you don't need much talent to produce beautiful images with these cameras (it's easier and easier every year), and people will almost ALWAYS save a few bucks when it's time to make a decision.

We (people) may also have different expectations in which one may be content with $50K annually, but someone else was used to pulling in $200K, and it's only been more difficult to do so in an ever-changing industry (and world).
Click to expand...

You can still charge that much for graphic design. And the clients that go on Fiver would have never paid that much before Fiver.

Talent + Skill + Perseverance + Reliability is not a common combination. It's a rare commodity, and there is a market willing to pay a premium for it.

PS. I've been a working creative professional for 35+ years. I've survived, and thrived, through all of these changes.
 
joe12south said:
But, hey, look at this footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZMY27q6sMo

I've never liked how the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 looks on GH cameras, but I'm loving the multiple examples I've seen of it on the P4K. The resolving power and contrast really grab ya when the harsh artificial processing isn't in the mix.
Click to expand...

I watched that before you posted and when I saw the end tag shot on Lumix 12-35 I just said, aww crap.

I coulda swore it was some beautiful high end zeiss or vintage leica. Nope. The freaking lumix 12-35. Just shows how much the aritifical processing wrecks those lenses and it's beyond me why Panasonic doesn't just have a quasi RAW mode that shuts off their NR, sharpening, etc. to get us closer to this. Just stunning footage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top