GH5 Announced
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
refocusedmedia
Veteran
I'm not saying you can crank the ISO on the GH4 and the image will hold up like it will on a 1DX or A7S.. I'm saying that you can shoot in low light conditions and it will look great if you approach the situation with the proper mindset. This whole notion of available light + high ISO = the only definition of "good low light performance" is ridiculous to begin with, and is largely responsible for the complaining in this thread. All the examples I linked are in low light conditions and look excellent. People are just used to doing things the lazy way now.
Note: none of this really applies to live or event videography or documentary, where you have no control over your environment and need as much flexibility as possible. People in those conditions not liking a GHx camera is completely understandable. But I believe the GHx series are more geared for narrative and cinema anyway, for which they are absolutely fantastic.
stoneinapond
Veteran
So, is it a consumer camera where V-Log could be a Christmas decoration to many people? I don't see what all the crying is about. Plus we don't know if Panasonic has made any improvements to the process.
roxics
Veteran
In that case, I want two headphone jacks to make up for all the cameras that lack one. That way I can listen to my headphones while listening to my headphones.
Honestly though i agree. I don't care for where the market is headed. Upgradable cameras seem like a great idea until you realize they are pulling features to sell separately but the initial price of the camera doesn't actually go lower. Some companies like ARRI are already renting features. I fear we're going to go to strictly a rental model in the future. A lot of other companies are already exploring that route. Why sell you one thing once and then work harder to tempt you to purchase the next model when they can just lock you into a monthly rental that you have to keep paying to keep using what you already have. A hundred years from now you won't be able to own anything if we stay on this track.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I don't care THAT much about low light. I sold my a7S, now I shoot with a tiny RX100 IV, I haven't missed the crazy high ISO capabilities. Having clean ISO 800 is enough for me. With the GH4, that was a bit noisier than I would have liked, but definitely manageable.
What drove me away from every GHx camera was the mediocre dynamic range. Hopefully, GH5+Vlog will sort that out and, at least, match Sony+Slog2.
This was shot with an a7S:
and this is the same scene, shot with a GH4 (without V-log because it wasn't out yet, and with noise reduction applied because yes, it was noisy, even though it was shot at ISO 200):
What drove me away from every GHx camera was the mediocre dynamic range. Hopefully, GH5+Vlog will sort that out and, at least, match Sony+Slog2.
This was shot with an a7S:
and this is the same scene, shot with a GH4 (without V-log because it wasn't out yet, and with noise reduction applied because yes, it was noisy, even though it was shot at ISO 200):
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, let me give you a potential alternative thing to think about then. With selling cameras comes supporting those cameras. And that costs the manufacturer money. A LOG profile, on a consumer camera, is very likely a risk and one that involves additional support. How many people in the consumer class are utterly clueless about log, how to use it properly, what it does to your footage, and how you need to post-process it? Let's be conservative and estimate 90%. Or let's be realistic and say it's 98%. There are probably only about 2% of the customers out there who understand what log is and how you have to post-process it to make it look good at all.
So what happens? 98% of the customers ***** and complain, and call the service department or the tech support people and bellyache and take up company personnel's time. And that costs money.
From the company's perspective, they'd probably be better off if that 98% of the customers never even tried log, and the customers would be better off too. Yet log is a good thing, in the right hands -- the hands of people who knew what they were getting into, who knew what they were doing; for those people log can be a great blessing. So, (again, from the company's perspective) wouldn't it be wonderful if you could just not have to deal with all the problems log causes in the wrong hands, in the hands of people who don't need it, don't understand it, and don't know why they just screwed up their footage and don't know how to fix it? What if there was a test, a competency level, some sort of restriction where the only people who would be using log, would be those who understood it, knew what they were doing, and were going to get great results from it?
To me, that's one reason why making it a paid option could perhaps make sense - to the company. Not to the consumer, of course -- the consumer always wants more, more, more, free, free, free, I know. But to the company -- it might make sense.
I see this as perhaps a reason why the UX180 and UX90 don't have log. They're not cinema cameras, they're workhorse cameras, and apparently the company has decided that log is not necessary for those types of cameras. The DVX200 is marketed as being suitable for cinema as well as workhorse, so it includes it. The UX180 and UX90 don't have it.
So the GH5 is aimed at being a consumer camera, with the knowledge that there are a certain percentage of their customers who want to use it for cinematic work too. So they make log available as an option for those customers, while never having to deal with the support issues from the consumers.
I don't know if this is their reasoning or not, but I can't help but think that if I'm not right, I'm at least close.
Arash Ayrom
Cataclysmo
I think this is more or less correct.
Factoring the costs of development, printing and tracking activation codes, and building and maintaining servers to facilitate the unlocking of the feature, I sincerely doubt V-log is a money-maker for Panasonic.
Given the popularity of the GH4 due to its low price and high specs, you're going to get tons of people accidentally shooting log footage (if it was included) and then clogging customer service, forums and Facebook with, "OMG! My footage looks so washed out and crappy!"
V-log is a high-end feature that needs to be controlled as it needs an external recorder and an experienced end user.
I think it's awesome Panasonic even ventured down this path, and brought out an experimental feature in a camera's mid-life.
Lastly, someone enthusiastic at Panasonic had to sell this V-log idea to his superiors. I can't imagine him succeeding by saying, "It's going to cost a million dollars to develop, and we're going to give it away for free."
To me, having that level of enthusiasm at the parent company, that level of listening to us customers, is well worth $99.
Arash Ayrom
Cataclysmo
Hah! Cross post! Looks like I said the same thing as Barry! I'm in good company
stoneinapond
Veteran
Seems logical to me, Captain......:nads:
Perhaps, but with a 29 min recording limit. That's a deal breaker for me.
roxics
Veteran
While true. How many other ways can an ignorant consumer mess up their footage with a camera like this, with this many bells and whistles? Log is simply one of many. Yet the support for those seem to be built into the cost of the camera. Why can't the same be true of log?
While a consumer camera, we're not talking about a compact point and shoot here. I'm not seeing a lot of soccers moms out shooting with GH4s, but maybe that's just my area. Cameras in this class are not for the faint hearted. I can see that argument holding up better on simpler cameras or a smartphone.
There are a lot of YouTube vloggers using cameras like the GH4 to shoot their videos from their bedroom. I suspect that many of them were told that the GH4 camera was the "it" camera for vlogging, and have no idea what V-log actually is... "Is that the Vlogging setting ?"
Erik Naso
Veteran
I just don't see the GH4 or the New GH5 as a camera designed with the intent of selling them as point and shoot cameras. They have more robust video features than any hybrid I know of and for that I applaud Panasonic for this. Spending around $100 for V Log really isn't a big deal as far as financial commitment from the end user. It's more principle to me. The GH5 is made for advanced users not soccer moms. When someone goes shopping for a interchangeable lens camera they are expecting to jump up to better features. If not then a point and shoot is plenty good.
Panasonic is listening to photojournalist and filmmakers on designing the GH5. It's the most capable feature rich hybrid to date for a reason.
What if Panasonic decided that other pro level features like Waveform, peaking, Zebra and HDMI out are paid upgrades as well? Maybe a filmmakers bundle for $300? Would that also be okay?
Panasonic will probably stick with the paid V-Log model they established. Unlike Sony that puts it in practically all the cameras they make including point and shoots. If they want to go after former GH4 shooters who went to Sony like myself I think they need to go all out and not nickel and dime me for a feature Sony includes. It's bad marketing.
Interesting perspectives from all. Enjoying the conversation. :thumbsup:
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I agree with Roxics on this one. The GH cameras are not really consumer cameras even if Panasonic sells them from the consumer division. The majority of buyers who take the time, money and research to invest in GH cameras are going to be pretty damn serious about what they are doing. Whether that is doing multi media, photography, video or cinema style they are mostly going to be buyers with a pretty good base of knowledge.
Why do I think this....well just go up to a "regular" person who has a very general sense of photography and ask them if they know what a Canon Rebel is - yep. They'll know what a Nikon DSLR is too. Say Panasonic GH3 or GH4 and they'll look at you sideways. These cameras are hard to be aware of, they don't sit in the bays at Best Buy or Wal Mart or Target. They don't advertise like Nikon and Sony and Canon.
So while we all may be aware of them like they are common place, most "consumers" don't have a freaking idea what they are. Last point - If a person buys a GH camera and has no knowledge of V-LOG, guess what.....they won't know what DCI 4K is either, or why 24P is important and which bit rate options to select either. So while Barry maybe right about what Panasonic is thinking, I say Panasonic is completely wrong about what "level" of camera they think they are dealing with here. I'm NOT suggesting that the majority of buyers will be cinema people, far from it, but I AM suggesting that if Panasonic has options for the people who ARE buying it for cinema, like DCI 4K and 24P, etc. then V LOG is nothing to worry about from a knowledge stand point.
I think the separate V-log charge has a far more practical reasoning behind it. Panasonic knows how many GH4's it has shipped. They also know how many GH4 owners downloaded the V-Log feature. Then they looked at that ratio - which had to be minuscule - and decided that those who really want it won't mind the added fee, while the majority of the perspective customers will simply enjoy a slightly lower price point. In general, it's pretty much a no-lose proposition for them.
PS. I assume they'll want to come in below XT2's $1,600 MAP.
PS. I assume they'll want to come in below XT2's $1,600 MAP.
Bassman2003
Veteran
I respect the opinions of the posters on this thread. Everybody in the arena knows what is up or down. I tend to look at it from Barry's point of view. The GH5 is an advanced consumer still camera in the eyes of the company. This is where the bulk of sales come from. So like many of the camera makers, Panasonic is leery of affecting this customer base along with losing time and money supporting a feature like LOG. Read the forums on DPReview and most do not care about video outside of a casual here and there. So I think this supports Barry's viewpoint.
Now from my perspective, I would be happy if ALL still camera makers would separate out more pro video features and charge for them. Why? Because this can give them cloud cover to actually include these features. I have been wanting "video" versions of these still cameras for many years. We always want more than the consumer still camera can give. So make a GH5-V or a Canon 5D-V, price it higher and give us what we want. Lets face it, video images have come down to sensors in any sized body. You do not need a "video camera" to make professional level output.
Consumer=stupid hardware limitations.
But economies of scale prevent this as we can forget how much larger the still world is than us. Which makes Panasonic's effort here quite nice. Too bad the launch will probably not be until NAB because if the thing would be on the street now they could have made quite a splash. By next April there will probably be more options to contend with. I do not know if I will wait that long.
Now from my perspective, I would be happy if ALL still camera makers would separate out more pro video features and charge for them. Why? Because this can give them cloud cover to actually include these features. I have been wanting "video" versions of these still cameras for many years. We always want more than the consumer still camera can give. So make a GH5-V or a Canon 5D-V, price it higher and give us what we want. Lets face it, video images have come down to sensors in any sized body. You do not need a "video camera" to make professional level output.
Consumer=stupid hardware limitations.
But economies of scale prevent this as we can forget how much larger the still world is than us. Which makes Panasonic's effort here quite nice. Too bad the launch will probably not be until NAB because if the thing would be on the street now they could have made quite a splash. By next April there will probably be more options to contend with. I do not know if I will wait that long.
I've read all the arguments here and I'm not sure that any of them ultimately make sense when you consider that Sony includes S-LOG for free on even their high-end pocket (RX100) and bridge (RX10) cameras. If pretty much any or all of what you guys are saying is true, Panasonic should have never developed it and made it available.
Now, I'm not opposed to the idea that a camera manufacturer could offer a base model with several unlockable features that cost money (ex: LOG, higher frame rates, higher color sampling, higher bit depth, codec options, and other software options), but I think that to only have a single feature that costs to upgrade kind of makes it stick out like a sore thumb and also makes people feel short-changed.
Now, I'm not opposed to the idea that a camera manufacturer could offer a base model with several unlockable features that cost money (ex: LOG, higher frame rates, higher color sampling, higher bit depth, codec options, and other software options), but I think that to only have a single feature that costs to upgrade kind of makes it stick out like a sore thumb and also makes people feel short-changed.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I am not advocating such a model, only pointing out that when that concept was introduced with the Red Epic, people hailed it as the greatest most original brilliant thing they'd ever heard of - "modularity". Buy what you need, add what you want, build it the way you want. Isn't that, in fact, the mentality that started the whole "DSLR" revolution? Buy an absurdly limited camera that can't possibly do the job, and then go and add dozens of accessories for thousands of dollars to build the camera into something that might service what you need?
I hated that idea, and hated DSLRs because of it (and because of the problems inherent in the image quality of the early DSLRs). But it was a roaringly successful business model. So obviously somebody liked it.
Yes, I can see that -- except that Sony does the exact same thing. A DVX200 includes 4k/60p recording internally. Did the FS700? No, you had to buy a firmware update for that. How about the FS5? Same thing. Sony may not do it on its point 'n' shoots, but they do it on their professional cameras.
Unless, of course, it starts a "DSLR revolution", in which case it's brilliant marketing, right?
Look, I don't like piecing things together. I prefer the approach of a DVX200, an all-in-one that does absolutely everything, right out of the box. But not everybody likes that. I didn't like it when Panasonic first did this with the AF100 -- you could buy a firmware update to get 1080/60p on that. I never bought that. I didn't like the concept when they did it with the GH4, and I'm not thrilled they're doing it with the GH5. But whether I like it or not, I can certainly understand the reasons why.
In fairness to Panasonic, they do offer Cine V and Cine D free of charge (aka included at price point). But, if most of the owners shoot baked-in anyway, then what's the point?