GH5s? New low light monster?

I doubt Panasonic's Dec 15th announcement has anything to do with the GH5....except (insert my wish list here) possibly an affordable set of Panny/Leica Anamorphics...as the GH4 and now especially the 5 pushed that feature hard, that will be the guess I go with...to me that would be the last piece of the puzzle with enormous image potential!...The GH5 is so feature loaded already, it would seem to make sense for Panny to put their eggs in another basket....especially after 2 major camera releases within a few months of each other!
 
Last edited:
At the moment everything is speculation but I wonder if Panasonic will include
variable ND's in the design?
From the leaked photos it appears to be the same body which would point to none.
I find this strange when IMO the Canon XC10 /15 form factor would be much better suited to a
video-centric/stills camera like this is supposed to be.

The XC10/15 is an ideal design for this type of hybrid shooting as it allows
you all the features of a video camera coupled with the ability to shoot stills.
I understand why they may have wished to re-use the existing GH5 body (from an economic point of view)
but I hope I'm wrong and the new GH5s (or whatever it's called) includes them,
time will tell !
 
Last edited:
Yep, when thinking about having a video centric model one starts to wonder why the stills body design is still being used. I hope we can eventually gravitate back to video camera design approaches. Something like the Canon XF400 or Panny X90 size and design is perfect for video work imho. The stills body always leaves me wanting a third hand...
 
fboonzaier said:
an affordable set of Panny/Leica Anamorphics..
Click to expand...

That would be so awesome! Yeah strange it takes these companies so long to make an affordable anamorphic lens in bulk. I would gladly pay +3K for a decent anamorphic lens(not like the slr magic anamorphots).
 
With the imminent release of the GH5s
what do you think are the chances we’ll see an updated
DVX300 with fixed or interchangeable lens?
Maybe based on the EVA1 body design and incorporating
this new sensor?
It looks like the GH5s will have the same body as
the GH5 which means no built in ND’s and other
features that make run and gun work easy.
IMO making a much smaller fixed or interchangeable
version of the DVX would make sense.
Any thoughts or wishes for a new DVX300 (or whatever it's called)
I've started a thread in the DVX200 section if anybody is interested in discussing
 
Polaroid22 said:
That would be so awesome! Yeah strange it takes these companies so long to make an affordable anamorphic lens in bulk. I would gladly pay +3K for a decent anamorphic lens(not like the slr magic anamorphots).
Click to expand...
If Panasonic released an anamorphic lens that's fast...2.8 or better and it can hold a sharp edge wide open, they could charge practically anything...I can't help feeling at some point they will introduce one or a set to go with the anamorphic capabilities that they are building into their cameras...if you look at the cost of anamorphic lenses that turn to mush in low light, they have serious wiggle room on a lens that can resolve 4K....would probably be S35, or even FF, but adaptable...
 
43rumors says the price will be around $2500 and it will be available at the end of February/early March.
 
I'm on the side of that aesthetic POV...but I've also read/seen the arguments and agree people watching probably wouldn't notice a difference with all else equal as you say.

But mentally/personally, I like to shoot on a larger sensor.
 
filmguy123 said:
Sure, but when lowlight and DR begins to match S35, assuming you have proper glass, what's the real difference?

Obviously as tech advances S35 will as well with the larger sensor, but this could potentially bring m43 to the modern S35 IQ standard - yes? (though I do admit that it does seem there is a difference in aesthetic rendering with larger sensors regardless, which I don't fully understand when all else seems equal).
Click to expand...

The real difference is people buy m43 systems for their smaller footprint, as well as the fact that, by and large, m43 isn't even in the conversation for DPs choosing their cameras.

S35 production cameras are larger. In a traditional professional environment the size actually helps - accessory/shoulder mounting etc.

Crews work on a production, rather than just the solo shooter who chose m43. S35 walks away with better images because the production involved an art department, AC artfully pulling focus on classic cinema lenses, hair, makeup, wardrobe, etc. etc.

My point is, S35 will keep putting out better samples because it's being used on larger budget shoots. Image quality aside, m43 isn't going to get a look unless it, ironically, comes out with a production-friendly (larger) body, which negates its main attraction.

It's similar to how the Arri Alexa Mini showreel looks amazing despite side by side comparisons showing much cheaper cameras producing very similar results. There are more highly skilled DPs shooting S35 than highly skilled DPs shooting m43.
 
NorBro said:
The Achilles' heel will for many always be the MFT sensor unless this camera is supposed to have a S35 one, IDK.
Click to expand...

What is exciting is the sensor is said to be a multi-aspect ratio sensor. When shooting 16:9 or 2.21 a large part of a 4x3 sensor goes unused. Anamorphic lenses help.
But the area used on a multi-aspect ratio sensor is wider when shooting 16:9. It brings us closer to S35 size on an M43 camera.
And if the rumors about the STARVIS sensor are true, then this could be a great low light option.
 
NorBro said:
The Achilles' heel will for many always be the MFT sensor unless this camera is supposed to have a S35 one, IDK.
Click to expand...

But I think, increasingly, they're going for different markets. My wife and I were flipping through the channels a couple weeks ago on a Saturday afternoon and came upon some gymnastics competition on NBC (I think). Images were really nice, and then I noticed after a few roving hand held camera guys walked through the background that they were using DVX200's. I couldn't imagine trying to pull that off with a larger sensor.

Trying to pull focus on m4/3 during a live or run-n-gun type scenario while still getting reasonable DoF when you're a one man band is much easier than when I do it on the A7s or FS5 (which are both FF and not S35, I know). If you're shooting smaller corporate productions (or even some broadcast) where they just "need it to look nice", it's more than adequate.
 
How is the difference between S35 and 4/3 even remarkable? It is one f-stop. 4/3 at f/4 will have the same depth of field as S35 at f/5.6.
 
After many years of thinking I need to stay in FF or s35 territory I am fully prepared to dive into the GH5. My limit for interviews is f4 on a FF or f2.8 on a s35. With 4k it easy to shoot a bit wider and crop in. So this opens up getting a fast prime on m4/3rds and you have the DOF to match. For the rest of what I do, the smaller sensor is a plus. I have used my RX10 II on a few occasions and it really had all of the DOF choices I would want in a non-produced setting. The image quality of the GH5 is really catching my eye and no longer will I let a simple DOF choice stand in my way.

If this new GH5s has a different sensor, lets hope they can maintain the mojo that the current GH5 has. I know I will be interested to see what happens on the 15th.
 
NorBro said:
I'm on the side of that aesthetic POV...but I've also read/seen the arguments and agree people watching probably wouldn't notice a difference with all else equal as you say.

But mentally/personally, I like to shoot on a larger sensor.
Click to expand...

Why?

What exactly does a s35mm sensor gain you over a m43 sensor and a focal reducer? When you use a focal reducer like the SpeedBooster on a m43 camera you essentially have the exact same FOV and DOF as a s35mm or APS-C camera. There tends to be a very physiological view of sensors and the bigger is better sort of thinking.

Honestly the size of the sensor itself has absolutely nothing to do with sensitivity. What affects sensitivity and DR is the size of each pixel on the sensor. Sure typically a larger sensor means larger pixels but that isn't always the case. APS-C cameras for example may have larger sensors but sometimes they also cram in more pixels. Think a 24MP APS-C camera vs a 16MP m43 camera. The sensor is larger but it is also cramming in more pixels. Saying a larger sensor is always better is the absolute simplest explanation of what is going on inside a camera and only really useful from a marketing perspective. We really need to stop thinking of camera performance just in terms of physical sensor size.

The Sony A7S is a low light beast partially because it is a FF camera but mostly because it only has 12MP on that FF sensor. Those photosites are massive buckets. If the A7S had 32MP it wouldn't be anywhere near the low light sucking beast it is. Other FF cameras are at best (and I really mean best) 2 stops better than m43 sensor cameras (A7S excluded of course). In camera noise reduction also plays a large part in the perceived higher ISO performance. Looks at raw stills between a m43 and FF camera and you can see that really the sensors themselves are not all that different.

If the GH5s does in fact pack less pixels into the sensor it could have photosites larger than most APS-C cameras and close to some FF cameras. Add a SpeedBooster and you achieve the aesthetic, FOV and DOF of a super 35mm camera with the sensitivity to match. Not just due to the extra stop of gain from the SpeedBooster but due to the much larger pixels on the sensor. For all intents and purposes you essentially have a s35mm camera. Nothing is different, nothing.

We can use a SpeedBooster now which matches the aesthetic, FOV and DOF of super35mm. The extra stop helps but high ISO still suffers due to the tiny pixels. So shooting ISO 6400 on the GH5 is questionable even with the SB added stop. ISO is ISO. The SB just means you can get by with ISO 3200 vs ISO 6400 to achieve the same exposure. ISO at 6400 will still look ugly. What the GH5s can improve on is how well extra ISO levels can look because the larger pixels can pull in more light with better S/N ratio. Thats really what makes a APS-C or FF camera seem better in low light. How well the ISO can be pushed to insane levels. Increase the size of each photosite on the GH5s and you put it on level playing field. You may suddenly find ISO 6400 and 128000 or even 256000 deliver decent results. The GH5s plus SpeedBooster really is at s35mm levels at that point. Minus raw of course. Not that 400mbps 10bit isn't robust enough.

I actually prefer to shoot with m43 because it keeps me thinking of the best choices for production value. Just because a camera can shoot at ISO 256000 doesn't mean it always should. I would rather be forced to use lights to add production value than ignore lights and take the easy route. I feel the same way about outdoor exposure and use ND.

Change the light hitting the lens and not the lens itself. I choose the F stop for aesthetic reasons and adjust the light hitting the lens to suit that desired look.
 
No point in getting into the chicken & egg argument. I did most of my learning/shooting FF on a 5D Mark II...I like a bigger sensor no matter the opinions or technical breakdowns. As I motioned in my previous post, it could be just mental.
 
The other real benefit of shooting m43 is the straight vs speedbooster option it allows for.
If smaller and lighter are important as it is for a lot of our outdoor/remote/action production then you can, as we do, have a set of small, light primes and zooms that allow for the same with all of the support gear.

On the other end, as Thomas points out, we get the option for larger format aesthetic with our bigger Nikon, Canon and Sigma glass and Speedboosters in more controlled shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top