GH5 Available for Pre-Order at $2k, amazing features.

Ron Evans said:
He disliked it so much he is going to order 3 of them !!! ...
Click to expand...
I meant the reviews of the review by the YouTube legions. At the moment, it's 363 "thumbs up" and 116 "thumbs down", which is only a ~ "3:1" ratio.

The previously posted (and thus not embedded by me again) Camera Store reenactment of the Joe Pesci -Ray Liotta scene from "GoodFellas" has a 30/1 like-to-dislike ratio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPTCrXbIbh4&t=801s#t=12m38s

The actual "acting" part starts at 12:38 in as per time stamp. I turned the sound off in order to concentrate on the visuals. At pointed out before, the final grade makes it look a bit too "video'ish" but, IMO, it's a pretty good looking footage.
 
^ Obviously. But he's just saying a small sensor can have more DR than a big sensor. Plenty of examples around, including BM 4.6k and Alexa.

I didn't expect the GH5 to have stunning DR, not because it's m43, but because it's a Panasonic: they've always went for "king of resolution, don't really care about the DR". (I'm talking GH-series here; I know how awesome the varicam is)
 
I find both the downgrading and overly hyped expectations of the GH5 fascinating. From all the footage I've seen the GH5 is hands down better than the GH4. The image looks sharper, richer and more colorful. The built in stabilization is a fantastic addition, as are the focusing features they've added. The 10bit 422 footage will help in post with both color correction and compositing. The tests i've seen show that there is at least 3 more stops you can get out of the GH5 vs GH4 and that is fantastic as well. For $2k it's an amazing piece of equipment that helps keep our production footprint more manageable.

The concept of purchasing one camera and never having to use anything else for whatever work you might need is dumbfounding. Do I only use one lens? I own two GH4 and a Sony A7sII and I rarely reach for the Sony unless I'm shooting something that make lighting the shot problematic for the production. I've shot plenty of broadcast commercials, corporate videos and online media using the GH4 and it's been a workhorse for us. Can it do everything? No. When i've needed extreme slow motion action I've used a Red Epic. But those complaining the low light of the GH5 is poor compared to the A7sII, my answer is so what? I would never use an Epic for low light work either. That is not it's strength. But to suggest the Sony is a better camera than the Epic is just silly. I was recently shooting an interior plane cockpit at night where I couldn't add additional light. The perfect camera for the job was the Sony A7sII at 16,000 ISO.

Some of the the camera reviews are coming from users that have a very unique set of parameter they want to work within. Example: One reviewer loved Digital zoom on 1080 footage rather than shooting 4k. That same review complained about in-camera audio of some cameras. You have to consider reviews within the parameters of their bias. Personally I would never use digital zoom unless I had a gun to my head. Most finishing is HD anyway, shoot 4k and have the latitude you need. Great in-camera audio is expecting too much out of a camera. That is why you have external mixers or recorders. Camera manufacturers have to reign in the costs somewhere, and audio usually suffers. Every camera has flaws, some you can work around, some are too problematic for my taste. The GH5 is going to be a workhorse for us and I'll rent something different for those times when the production requires it.
 
Thomas Smet said:
You needed that article to know that? In what universe did anybody ever expect a m43 camera to have the same DR as a FF camera?
Click to expand...

Bmcc has better DR or equal to a7s2 and its smaller than m43. Its not the size of the sensor but the pixel density and processing. Samuel explains it clearly
 
I said this in a round about way before, but something people really have to factor in is that some of the drawbacks about the GH5 are inherently tied to it's strengths, and most of those don't show up on clinical lab tests and spec sheets.

If this was a video game where you have to select a character, or a car for racing, or a gun to shoot with, the GH5 would be through the roof in some categories and low in others. But that's the same for the URSA Mini Pro. Unless you are looking at things in a hyper one dimensional sense, you have to realize that in a world of technological compromises the GH5 has trade-offs more-so than pure drawbacks.

You trade 800mbps internal ProRes for a small, lightweight camera that can last hours on tiny batteries (I can literally buy 20 Wasabi batteries for the price of 1x Anton Bauer... that would last about a week of shooting, weigh the same, take up less space, etc.).

There's a LOT of trades you make with the GH5, but they aren't so much pure drawbacks as they are choices. As Thomas pointed out, even excluding price, as soon as you enter a multicamera setup the GH5 strengths really shine even more. Or as soon as you think of the benefits on a 5-axis internal stabilizer, or the ability to do XYZ.

Seriously, the GH5 is the SMG of Rainbow Six, or the motorcycle of GTA V, etc. Even if you took price out of the picture entirely, the GH5 is still compelling over the Sony A7S, FS7, and Ursa Mini for various use cases. I would love to see a GH5 with all the strengths of the GH5 and all the strengths of the URSA Mini Pro, but in 2017 that simply is physically possible at any price point.

By 2020 when the next gen of Ion Lithium battery tech comes out, and CPUs are faster and cooler, and memory card bandwith is higher, and perhaps H265 at 400mbps becomes possible, and when etc. etc. - but even then, every camera is a set of strengths and weaknesses, and as technology progresses the bar is eternally moving. Camera choices will always be like this.

I wish we could all talk in terms of trade-offs instead of negatives. Let's not forget we're essentially comparing pistols to assault rifes, motorcycles to trucks, etc. I'm well aware of the GH5 drawbacks, but I consciously choose those trades because it has a crap ton to offer.

And I also fully agree with Thomas - it's important to study your camera and tests to understand it well, but all said and done it's essential to not get hung up there. Regardless of what any hyper-zoomed analysis points out, when you just sit back and watch the videos the GH5 produces they are clearly stunning. I know what my eyes are telling me. They are telling me that the GH5 footage looks remarkably good. And isn't that really what matters?
 
OK, that slashcam.de test doesn't look bad at all. Some more tests have to be done, to identify the reason the cinema5D result looks so bad. Maybe it's something that will show up in one-in-a-thousand shots, even though it didn't look like that at first.
 
Such impressive features! As a daily GH4 shooter (making my money mostly on that camera), I have to say that I need to get away from these cameras because the skin tones are just not something I can live with any more. The unicyclist is a case in point. His skin is just so unnatural looking to me. I just did a gig with the c100/c300 combo (provided by client) and it was painful to experience what I've been missing because of the colorimetry of the gh4. No matter what I did to the grade, the skin just held up so much better. I know, this dead horse has already been beaten to the ground.

I may still get a gh5 because it just can't be beat in terms of features and bang for buck, but damn. If you are shooting people mostly, it's hard for me to live with.
 
They just use a LUT, not doing manual grading, so the black are all crushed. So many people pointed the problem in the comments of youtube and I've thought to make a try to balance the lights and shadow.
 
ozmorphasis said:
Such impressive features! As a daily GH4 shooter (making my money mostly on that camera), I have to say that I need to get away from these cameras because the skin tones are just not something I can live with any more. The unicyclist is a case in point. His skin is just so unnatural looking to me. I just did a gig with the c100/c300 combo (provided by client) and it was painful to experience what I've been missing because of the colorimetry of the gh4. No matter what I did to the grade, the skin just held up so much better. If you are shooting people mostly, it's hard for me to live with.
Click to expand...

I've been shooting commercials and doing interviews with GH4 for years. I've never really had a problem with the skin tone. Perhaps it's your settings or the lighting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top