GH5 Announced
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
roxics
Veteran
Whoa! Thanks for the heads up. That's kind of a big deal. The one thing I hate about most of these mirrorless cameras is their tiny form factor. I prefer a bigger style SLR. So this is basically an A7R with a proper form factor. I'd say that's a pretty big deal.
Is depressing reading on other places on the internet how quick the anti-MFT trolls are out, and of course their first red herring is "but it sucks at low light".
This low light argument reminds me of the megapixel race, sure there was big benefits from going from 2 megapixels to 5 megapixels, 12 megapixels, but then at around 16 megapixels to 24 megapixels range... the arguments got a *lot* weaker. And for 99.9% of users we don't need 50 megapixels!
Ditto low light, not being constrained by 50 ISO film is *AWESOME*, then getting to 200 ISO... great! And now we can do workable 800 and 1600 and even 3200 ISO!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyeKIOV-EZw
Let's assume GH5 carries on and is one stop better even than that? How is that not a very workable ability to handle?
Do we NEED to have clean 100,00 ISO?? Nah, that is over the top in nearly all cases.
I'd rather pass on the unnecessary over the top extreme high ISO capabilities and have instead the well polished and extensive range of features that the GH5 will have.
This low light argument reminds me of the megapixel race, sure there was big benefits from going from 2 megapixels to 5 megapixels, 12 megapixels, but then at around 16 megapixels to 24 megapixels range... the arguments got a *lot* weaker. And for 99.9% of users we don't need 50 megapixels!
Ditto low light, not being constrained by 50 ISO film is *AWESOME*, then getting to 200 ISO... great! And now we can do workable 800 and 1600 and even 3200 ISO!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyeKIOV-EZw
Let's assume GH5 carries on and is one stop better even than that? How is that not a very workable ability to handle?
Do we NEED to have clean 100,00 ISO?? Nah, that is over the top in nearly all cases.
I'd rather pass on the unnecessary over the top extreme high ISO capabilities and have instead the well polished and extensive range of features that the GH5 will have.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I was one of the first GH4 owners and coming from the 5D MKIII/C300/C100 at the time, the Panasonic GH4 was definitely sharper with higher resolution. But the noise! I am a DP and I light scenes and even at ISO 800, the noise from the M43 imager was borderline. Anything over 800 was unacceptable to my clients. I bought the GH4 on specs and was disappointed at the sub par audio, noisy imager and no matter what I did as far as settings, the orange/cyan cast to skin tones. So I got rid of it after a few months. It had great promise but was not a professional video camera. Coming from owning the HVX200/HPX170/HPX300, if the GH4 would have had the same color science, I would have loved it. When I go back to the footage from these old cameras today, the colors are still beautiful but my clients and I hated the GH4 color science. The specs on the GH5 seem to be the best thing since sliced bread but I would like to hear about color science, image noise, audio quality from any of you who take the plunge when it is available. To my audio-centric viewpoint, the XLR adapter looks hacky, like it will easily snap off the hot shoe when a cable is accidentally tugged too hard. They should have engineered the XLRs into the handgrip/YAGH replacement, that would work much better. Having the cables up the top of the camera is a bad idea.
Not dissing on the camera, the engineering achivements are great, but from a shooter POV, it doesn't look as if they have have addressed everything that people really need and want. I am sure it will be a big seller though, just as the GH4 has been, it's just not for me probably. I would rent one and give it a shot though. 4K 50/60P is impressive.
roxics
Veteran
I would think 10bit 4:2:2 is easier on the processor than 8bit 4:2:0 as there is less processing of the image going on. But I'm just guessing.
Micro 4/3 sensor + Panasonic engineering...
4K 10-bit 4:2:2 should make the V-LOG profile a lot more useful.
It's the same way Sony has been doing it, but I agree that I would rather have an "Audio Grip" that you can attach to the bottom of the GH5 to support XLR inputs, even it it means an external power source. Just don't make it anything like the YAGH Brick. Just look at how Sound Devices adds XLR inputs to their 4K PIX-E recorders and try and replicate something similar for the GH5.
David W. Jones
Veteran
I saw you posted this on reduser as well.... Why is it you feel that when someone posts about the inherent noise levels in the recorded signal, hoping for better low light performance, you feel the need to label them as an anit-MFT troll? What does that make me for wanting a full sized HDMI port with proper timecode and the lack of latency?
Thomas Smet
Veteran
And I just bought a GH4 at the beginning of this month. That's ok, I knew this was coming soon. The price was right and so are the specs. Sounds like it may be almost another years before the GH5 is released anyway. I dig that new XLR adapter, wonder if it will be backwards compatible with the GH4? I doubt it, but that would be cool.
Also 6K 30fps? What is the deal on that? I know it's a photo mode but it still needs to shoot 30fps to do what it says it does. Sounds like a possible MOS camera to me.
Nothing wrong with the GH4. It is still a solid camera capable of doing things other DSLR cameras still cannot do. Yes the internal 10bit 4:2:2 is extremely convenient but we still have the option of getting that on the GH4 with an external recorder.
What we don't know yet is what format that 10bit 4:2:2 actually is. If it is H264 based it may not be the worlds most optimal format. Think the All-I format in the GH4 we now have and how visually they are not the best. Spec wise 4:2:2 10bit sounds good on paper but just like with any codec we have to see how it actually holds up to ProRes or DNxHD. I for one still put my faith behind using an external recorder and a tried and true format like ProRes. Besides shooting 4k and setting color, exposure and focus just right will always be a chore and a hail Mary on a small camera LCD. Serious productions really should consider a proper monitor with scopes, false color and decent size and resolution to make sure every shot looks right. This is why to me even with the internal 10bit on the GH5 I would likely still use an external recorder.
V-Log to be an option on GH5
V-Log to be an option on GH5
My contacts at Panasonic have indicated that V-Log would continue as an option for the GH5.
V-Log to be an option on GH5
My contacts at Panasonic have indicated that V-Log would continue as an option for the GH5.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
H264 has always been capable of 10bit 4:2:2. In fact it is capable of 4:4:4 as well. It is just typically manufacturers do not use that level of the H264 spec. I am willing to bet the GH5 will still use an H264 encoder so it can still record lesser formats for HD and 4k.
This makes me question how the internal encoder will compare to a tried and true ProRes format. I'm sure it will look great but H264 still does a lot of tricks to get the file size smaller. Visually we don't always see these tricks but they are there. Any time the file size goes down something is thrown out. If that thrown out information is a big deal is up to each individual. I myself will still likely put my faith behind an external recorder and ProRes but that is just me.
I guess it gives them the up-sell option for the people that want it.
I think we really have to wait until somebody is able to do a side by side comparison of internal vs external recording with the GH5, which probably means waiting until NAB 2017.
indiawilds
Veteran
Expecting high ISO in a camera is trolling?
The GH4 was terrible in many aspects especially the low light ability. ISO 800 is not usable. In one corporate shoot, I needed to shoot at f8 and the lights were simply not enough. To light the entire place would have been out of budget. There was no way I could have used the GH4. Shot that scene with the C300 at ISO 3200.
There are many indie features, as well as in documentaries where by simply replacing the GH4 with a better low light camera, one can save tons of money in lighting alone. And anyone who is filming as a profession needs to treat this as a business and evaluate equipment accordingly.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
The interesting thing about the MP race is that is can hurt low light performance. There is this misconception that sensor size = low light ability but that alone is not true at all. What matters is the density of the pixels on that sensor. The density determines how large each pixel is and how much light it can capture. A APS-C 24mp sensor has photosites just are large as a 16mp m43 sensor has. If you look at RAW stills from the two types of sensors there actually isn't a huge difference in noise. What I think gives the impression that APS-C is a better form of in camera noise reduction which is why jpeg stills and video tend to look like they have less noise. Plus specs are not a written in stone concept. You could have a better designed APS-C sensor that is more sensitive than an older generation FF sensor. A lot of things can factor into the ability to pull in light vs just the sensor size. The sensor size has been the lazy way for people to pick on cameras and think one is better than another.
The reason the Sony A7S is a low light beast is not just because it is FF but because it only packs 12MP in that FF space. Those photosites are massive compared to a canon 5D FF sensor. This is the plague of DSLRs for video. They only need 4k video yet have a huge amount of wasted pixels. m43 just means the sensor has a much closer value to what is needed for 4k video without wasting 1/2 the sensor. The over sampling argument goes out the window since few DSLRs actually use anywhere near a decent form of oversampling to benefit the image. Line skipping is not a solution and until DSLRs get the processing power to perform a proper down conversion without exploding in my hands I will value a sensor that takes a 1:1 readout of the pixels.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Exactly.
The GH4 was great if you had gobs of light, but it was abysmal in the noise department otherwise.
[/QUOTE]To my audio-centric viewpoint, the XLR adapter looks hacky, like it will easily snap off the hot shoe when a cable is accidentally tugged too hard. They should have engineered the XLRs into the handgrip/YAGH replacement, that would work much better. Having the cables up the top of the camera is a bad idea. .[/QUOTE]
Maybe TA3 "mini xlr" jacks, as mentioned regarding SD's Epix. But the up top adapter as pictured has readily accessed switches and dials in addition to the jacks...increasing the real estate demands. It might be an analog to digital converter as well..feeding via shoe connection? I fear it will be pricey for what it does though...given the number of (albeit not camera powered) 3rd party options that might be adequate if the mic ins aren't garbage.
As it appears..I bet some creative folk could come up with custom low profile right angle XLR cabling with some strain relief to the body proper.
..wonder if this adapter will work with the FZ2500. Probably costs as much that cam
Maybe TA3 "mini xlr" jacks, as mentioned regarding SD's Epix. But the up top adapter as pictured has readily accessed switches and dials in addition to the jacks...increasing the real estate demands. It might be an analog to digital converter as well..feeding via shoe connection? I fear it will be pricey for what it does though...given the number of (albeit not camera powered) 3rd party options that might be adequate if the mic ins aren't garbage.
As it appears..I bet some creative folk could come up with custom low profile right angle XLR cabling with some strain relief to the body proper.
..wonder if this adapter will work with the FZ2500. Probably costs as much that cam
Last edited: