I'm afraid that I won't be able to use a camera cage with the GH5 with this audio adapter installed. So being able to hang audio UHF receivers, monitors, lights, ect... won't be possible when using this adapter. An audio grip adapter might make it possible to use the "audio grip" and a cage at the same time.
GH5 Announced
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
I'm afraid that I won't be able to use a camera cage with the GH5 with this audio adapter installed. So being able to hang audio UHF receivers, monitors, lights, ect... won't be possible when using this adapter. An audio grip adapter might make it possible to use the "audio grip" and a cage at the same time.
Hmm..true. I wonder then why they didn't simply update the GAGH to use camera power and allow no latency monitoring. Well..they probably decided to emulate the Sony adapter. So again, depending on quality of camera body mic in, decent 3rd party unit underneath might be better for many.
Doesn't the GH4 already do 4:2:2 10-bit externally?
dustylense
Veteran
It will be an exceptional camera just based off what they did with the Gh4. I own the Gh4 and will never sell it. There is no reason to sell it. This camera, like all GH cameras, will continue to surpass the expectations penny has achieved with the GH line. They always work. They never over heat (sony) and they are built like tanks. Now cue the complainers......
+1
100% correct. Having poor low light performance exacts a penalty on a production in the light required. If you already have gobs of light or are shooting bright exteriors, you may not care. But a lot of us shoot interiors that need lights - if I can cut 50% off my lighting package, I'll take that, thank you. It's the same story as always with DSLRs - they look cheap and tasty, until you start working with them and realize that they need to be kitted out with a bunch of stuff that comes standard with a video cam - and depending on the DSLR, it will be different things, battery, monitor, ff, audio solutions, external recorders, etc., etc., etc. - and the GH4 is no different, because of noisy or unusable low light, it needs a ton of lights in many situations compared to other cams. That's just a clear-cut handicap. Mentioning it is not trolling. What good does it for me to save $500, but then have to shell out $1500 for extra lights not to mention the hassle of working with all those extra lights. That's one reason why I passed on the GH4, and you can bet that I'll be looking to see what the GH5 brings to the table when it comes to low light - I still have a bunch of m4/3 lenses, adapters and whatnot, so I'm motivated to stay with Panny and the m4/3 format, but not at any cost. I don't need A7S level of performance, but low light is important to me for my use scenarios. YMMV.
refocusedmedia
Veteran
What a whiny bunch. GH4 looked fine in low light, unless you followed all the gear blogger advice and adjusted your settings to pseudo-"shoot flat" and cranked up your Master Pedestal. God forbid you have to light your scenes, or that shooting in the dark actually looks.. idk.. dark.. instead of that totally awesome jacked orange ISO look that masquerades as "low light" these days.
Look how bad the GH4 is in low light everyone
https://vimeo.com/100097834
https://vimeo.com/117685941
https://vimeo.com/114682601
https://vimeo.com/99486027
Look how bad the GH4 is in low light everyone
https://vimeo.com/100097834
https://vimeo.com/117685941
https://vimeo.com/114682601
https://vimeo.com/99486027
Gah! My client wants everything lit by either pale moonlight or by fireflies...
cpreston
Veteran
What does low light mean? Most people mean shooting with a lot of shadows in the image at relatively higher ISO's where shadow detail is important. Being able to work at higher ISO's can be a huge problem solver. For some types of work, that ISO flexibility is more important than any other capability. Shoot a wedding reception and you will quickly realize what "low light" capability means.
I think it depends entirely on what you're regularly doing. I shot this launch party video at an almost completely dark restaurant in NYC with an A7s.
https://vimeo.com/128527692
It's literally the only camera I've ever owned that would have let me shoot in those conditions without bothering people with a light (not to mention the non-existent prep time on this one, I didn't have one). I think it was rated over 50,000 ISO and it was very, very useful to have. I think about it like slo-mo; I actually don't use it that much, but I'd hate to not have the capability. In fact, the A7s may be the only camera I've ever sold that I'm planning to re-buy. I feel like my kit is a bit less capable than it was and there have been situations that would have been easier/better it I'd had the ability to shoot that high.
I miss my A7s...
Thomas Smet
Veteran
then go buy another camera. I feel your pain but you have to also look at it from our side. We hear people constantly beat that dead horse to death that the GH4 is horrible in low light and it doesn't work for me, blah blah blah. It gets a bit old after awhile.
Seriously use the best tool for the job and stop complaining about specific tools. If the Gh4 doesn't work for you then move on. It's the constant complaints we are tired of. We don't deny that the GH4 is not the best in low light. We are not dumb and we know this. We see it clearly and we still love the camera. It just gets a bit tiring to hear the complaints all the time.
Is there a specific purpose to constantly harp on the low light abilities of the GH4? Will it magical change tomorrow if we pray to the camera gods hard enough? No it will not. It is what it is. You either love it or you don't. It does little good to keep harping on this same stupid argument back and forth. Let those of us who love the $#!% out of the GH4 enjoy the camera and discuss issues of actual relevance and not how Panasonic screwed up by not switching to FF. In terms of film making I never want to hear the term FF ever again. I honestly don't give a darn what FF can do. My basis of comparison is super35mm. If the GH4 can match the original RED ONE is terms of low light and dynamic range then I consider that pretty impressive for a now $1,000 camera.
stoneinapond
Veteran
Done. That's what exposure balancing in an NLE is for.
cpreston
Veteran
I don't know what you mean. Are you underexposing?
rob norton
Veteran
The shoe XLR add ons are too big (this one, SONY's) - they don't need the pots on the unit, audio adjustments can be made on the camera. I agree it could be in a grip or something less prone to snapping off.
I can't see it ever happening, but I think it'd be cool to have just a single XLR input, along with one 3.5 mic too.
Lose the flash to create more real estate - IDK if I've use it once on my GH4!
I can't see it ever happening, but I think it'd be cool to have just a single XLR input, along with one 3.5 mic too.
Lose the flash to create more real estate - IDK if I've use it once on my GH4!
But there one is risking blowing out his highlights with the practicals! Charles Papert posted about shooting night scenes at high ISO's with Varicam LT and then having to be concerned about the street lamps.
In situations like that night club party, you still need the high ISO capable camera (Canon has that FF 1080p model that retails for ~ $30,000 but where you can shoot with the fireflies) but, with the narratives, the cost of lighting gear has plummeted with the same speed as other electronics. Technically speaking, there'll be several hundred dollars in cost difference between GH5 and (the new and unused) A7s, which can buy a lot of lumens these days.
Erik Naso
Veteran
That would be a HUGE mistake.
Erik Naso
Veteran
Totally agree. I shot a show with 3 GH4's and dreaded going past ISO 800 because I knew in post I would have to clean it up and noise reduction on compressed UHD was a *****!
We all have different tolerances with noise but the GH4 was hard for me. It has a nasty looking grain. Lots of dancing RGB that looks digital. I'm not opposed to noise but the GH4's is ugly. That and the HDMI latency was my main issues.
On the other hand I love what Panasonic is doing pushing really hard to get the GH5 to be an awesome hybrid, and as of todays official announcement i'm really excited about the evolution of the camera and l look forward to how Sony will counter to it.
Lets just agree that we might finally see 10 bit 422 as the new bar and we have Panasonic to thank for it.
Erik Naso
Veteran
I just don't see V Log in it's current state worth paying for but I find it strange to pay for it even if it's improved. I didn't agree with the payed route the first time around either. It's a selling point of the new camera. Panasonic is releasing a 10 bit 422 4K internal recording beast and to not include log? WTF really! With your logic 10 bit 422 should also be a paid option because hey! Not everyone needs it.
Erik Naso
Veteran
All the samples you linked was shot at ISO set under 800 and one with mixed ISO but nothing over 800. It's not a "low light" issue it's what the cameras ISO is set to that is how you determine a cameras usable setting. To me the acheles heal with the GH4 has been ISO noise over 800.
roxics
Veteran
Agreed. It seems like a strange thing to charge for on what is basically still a consumer camera. They aren't charging separately for all the other camera profiles they include. So build the price of developing this into the cost of the camera from the get go like they do those profiles. I feel the same way about Canon leaving out CLog on most of their DSLRs. How much extra can it possibly be on a camera that is already $1000+ dollars and includes several other profiles already? Leave out the vivid profile and give us log if you're only willing to add X number of free profiles with each camera. I'm fine with that.