GH5 GH6 and the future of M43

I think it is important to ask all of ourselves exactly what would m43 gain from a larger sensor? Part of why every single Panasonic camera under the sun can have 4k is because of the sensor size. Heat and the processing required to pull off 4k was so much easier on m43 vs APS-C or FF. Remember when the Canon 7D would overheat when just doing HD? There is a reason why a lot of larger sensor Canon and Nikon cameras are struggling to pull off 4k and why Sony cameras still have an overheating problem. Be careful what you wish for. In the end moving to APS-C would have marginal gains in low light and DR but the camera would have to sacrifice weight, size, heat dissipation, rolling shutter speed and the potential to advance quickly with technology like 6k and 8k video. m43 sensors will likely always be better than larger sensors when it comes to heat, rolling shutter and technology advancements. Larger sensors are really only good at one thing. Shooting in crappier conditions.

Very few people have moved to Olympus or Panasonic cameras due to the name. They moved to them because the gains vastly outweighed the losses from larger systems.
 
DLD said:
From the point of electronics and sensors, the market is getting into the "too good for the eye" territory. 5K is good enough. 10-bit 400 Mbps Log is good enough. 12-stops are good enough. SDXC cards are good enough. G6 will make another step up in quality to the point where the difference between high end and consumer will be even less noticeable. And, after that, it's the race to the bottom in terms of price. Look at there G7 and GX8 are now. And, in two years, some other camera will sell for $500 and shoot GH5 quality footage and no one will bat an eye.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
Thomas Smet said:
If they suddenly popped up and were $2,500 each would you still be excited? What are you shooting with a zoom lens that f2.0 vs f2.8 would make or break the project? Have you considered the Sigma f1.8 zooms? Darn good lenses and you can get EF adapters that control everything except for the added stabilization. You can buy a SpeedBooster plus two Sigma f1.8 zooms for the price of what a single f2.0 m43 zoom lens would cost. Would even be over a stop more sensitive since you are using a focal reducer. So really it would be like a f1.2 zoom for native m43.
Click to expand...

No need to get defensive about the format. I am already a Canon FF stills shooter and have some Sony cameras that are mainly used for video. If I wanted to sell everything and commit to one I would need the entire package. I am just not crazy about adapters. As a one man band/solo stills/video shooter I need maximum flexibility before considering a purchase. And yes, if the f2 zooms would allow me to only have a couple of them to cover most all jobs they would be worth the $2,000 on a $2,000 GH5. But I am not a buyer so it does not matter in the end.
 
Bassman2003 said:
The problem for me is I do not shoot primes all of the time.
Click to expand...

If Panasonic and Olympus keep expanding their line of "pro" lenses, I think you might actually see a couple of f/2.0 zooms in a few years. They will be big and expensive ( probably cost more than their FF equivalents ), but they will also be sharp wide-open and weatherproof.

You could also adapt the 4/3 f/2.0 zooms to micro 4/3 but these are older lenses that won't have the AF or OIS performance of the current f/2.8 "pro" lenses, but you will get the f/2.0 speed and top optical performance.
 
@Thomas Smet...m43 is also about flexibility. If you really want that s35mm look you can get it. Slap on a focal reducer and you have the same FOV and DOF as a s35mm or APS-C camera. I just don't see what the problem with this is. Ok you have to pay more for a focal reducer but the same is true if Panasonic suddenly decided to go with a larger sensor. At least with m43 the way it is the user gets to decide if they need that or not. If a user is 100% happy with what m43 can already do at the size and weight and comfort level then they don't need anything larger. Choices.

Absolutely!...I use 1 XL adapter for Nikon Mount that cost $599...I have 6 lenses I use this with, on the GH5 and it turns the sensor into S35+ and each of those lenses gain 1 1/3 stop in speed...incredible value for the money!
 
TheDingo said:
If Panasonic and Olympus keep expanding their line of "pro" lenses, I think you might actually see a couple of f/2.0 zooms in a few years. They will be big and expensive ( probably cost more than their FF equivalents ), but they will also be sharp wide-open and weatherproof.

You could also adapt the 4/3 f/2.0 zooms to micro 4/3 but these are older lenses that won't have the AF or OIS performance of the current f/2.8 "pro" lenses, but you will get the f/2.0 speed and top optical performance.
Click to expand...

Yes...I bought the Leica 12-60 (only 2.8 at the wide end) but that's what lights are for, and now Panny Leica is releasing the 8-18...$2100 for 2 amazing lenses and they're very light for an all metal housing!...I think the system is actually just expanding both in quality and usability!
 
The overheating in cameras is generally due to the larger die processors, limited space for ventilation, the budget driven lack of the temperature resistant metals/ceramics and the requirement for a highly compressed and still decent quality video due to the SD cards bandwidth limitation. The size of the sensor itself - MFT vs. APS-C vs. FF - has very little to do with it.
 
I agree with Thomas Smet and fboonzaier.

If you have a 4/3 mount, you can use 4/3 lenses, and get that 1 stop deeper focus when you prefer it. And you can put on a Speedbooster to use S35 lenses and get S35 depth of field.

If you have a S35 sensor and an EF mount, you can use S35 lenses and get S35 depth of field.

What am I missing?
 
I seriously doubt m4/3 is going anywhere. I've been a second shooter on a couple of weddings the last month for a guy shooting on A7s ii's... beautiful images, but the glass is huge, and pulling focus on full frame is a pain in the video assets. We just got a pair of FS5's at work with the Sony 18-135mm PZ lenses... they are frickin' sweeeeet. BUT, I wouldn't really want to do live event stuff with them because, again, fulling focus seems like it could be a pain. Shot a bunch of interviews yesterday with my GH4 and my Panasonic 12-35mm and 35-100mm X lenses, and got more than adequate shallow DoF with a small footprint. My DVX200 is a wonderful jack of all trades and excels at live events over S35 or FF, and I kinda wish I wasn't going to sell it here pretty soon (simply don't need two cameras anymore, and will sell the GH4 as well to fund a GH5). I would be shocked if there wasn't eventual DVX250/300/HVX300/whatever. M4/3 serves a big niche with servo zooms that are simply impossible to do with larger sensors in a cost effective manor.
 
The thread seems to have a lot of responses focusing on if M43 is a good format or a viable format. I agree it's a great format, no question there. To clarify my question, my concern is that M43 will "die off" for use in video not because it isn't up to the job, but because massive improvements and price drops in small form factor S35 cameras.

I am worried M43 will live on as a stills system, and companies will stop investing in it's viability as a lightweight pro video solution due to market demand and figures. All the users in this forum love it, but outside of that? Do you think the way the market is going that Panasonic and others will invest as much into the GH6/7 video features wise as they have with the GH5?

Or will we invest thousands into lenses to be left with an M43 format that is largely geared towards stills, while manufactures focus all their effort on EF and E-mount S35+ cameras?

I know nothing is forever, but I see less ability to be uprooted from an S35 format with EF mount glass because the size of the market is so large. Releasing a camera outside of that ecosystem is hard as you will lose a ton of sales, and you tap into a massive far-reaching audience with EF and PL mounts. But M43? Olympus makes cameras that aren't compelling for pro video. If Panasonic decides to stop investing resources into the video side of their M43 cameras, I don't want to be left with a pile of M43 native glass that will see no future camera body innovations for video in the coming years. If the video-centric GH5 is the last or 2nd last of its kind, it's going to be a bummer.

I know for sure that worst case scenario, EF glass will have a much longer shelf life (and range of sensors to cover)...

I ask because I really love the GH5 and the M43 form factor, and investing in adapted Full Frame glass is "safe" but doesn't ideally maximize the benefits of the camera system... so I want to invest even MORE into M43 native glass. I just don't want to get screwed and be left hanging with an abandoned line that becomes focused on stills with video as an afterthought...
 
For anything where you HAVE to get the shot, M4/3 is really a no brainer...you get focus...consistently...your footprint is small in every way...I build my cameras out, and just use the brain....
but the build the camera functions and handling out around it...even loaded with a 7" Shogun recording 4K 10bit 4:2:2....another 5 inch monitor to the right and back of the cam the camer...magic armed off a cheeselplate for the Focus Puller...and lastly a viewfinder for shooting in sunlight...left front of camera when it's on your shoulder...With my 80-200 Nikon AFS 2.8 ED...I can get this camera on a Miller D20 head...the camera gets built in minutes...all my support gear is lighter easier to move around dolly shots...crane boom...the M4/3 gives you much more than image...and the beauty is you build it out to whatever you want to work with...I don't believe it's going anywhere!
Or...I can take by GH5 and a pancake 20mm and look like a tourist...there's so much flexibility...in m4/3
 
Last edited:
Mike Harvey said:
I seriously doubt m4/3 is going anywhere. I've been a second shooter on a couple of weddings the last month for a guy shooting on A7s ii's... beautiful images, but the glass is huge, and pulling focus on full frame is a pain in the video assets...
Click to expand...
The latest Sony, Nikon and Canon (A99II, A9, 1D XII, D5, etc.) cameras have excellent auto focus but the laws of physics are hard to change. Compared to MFT, Canon's and Sony's FF lenses are heavy and expensive. Meanwhile, a BSI aided MFT sensor should be able to get a couple of more stops.

PS. Hypothetically speaking, an 8.8 rather than a 20 MPX sensor could be made for a video geared MFT model. Larger pixels would additionally aid in the low light/high ISO performance and, considering that GH2/34/5 have been mainly marketed as "video first" piece anyway, it might be a good idea for Panasonic to release something like that in a video camera body ... and call it AF200. Which they won't do.
 
filmguy123 said:
my concern is that M43 will "die off" for use in video not because it isn't up to the job, but because massive improvements and price drops in small form factor S35 cameras.
Click to expand...

People have been saying this ever since the first GH1 camera showed up, while reality has proven to be the exact opposite, the m4/3 platform keeps getting better with each iteration of the cameras.

I didn't buy into m4/3 because of the price ( I had considered switching to the Sony A7Sii platform before the GH5 was announced ) and I don't see any "massive" improvements that will be restricted just to the S35 cameras. ( maybe RAW recording is the one feature right now, but that could all change with the next GHx camera )

filmguy123 said:
Or will we invest thousands into lenses to be left with an M43 format that is largely geared towards stills, while manufactures focus all their effort on EF and E-mount S35+ cameras?
Click to expand...

The m4/3 manufacturers are essentially Olympus and Panasonic ( Blackmagic and DJI are much smaller players in the game ), and I see NO evidence that Olympus or Panasonic are not 110 percent committed to the m4/3 platform. You really sound like "chicken little" to me, where you are expressing all of these worries about problems that don't exist now, and likely won't exist in the future. There are better things to worry about than this.

Also, you are allowed to invest in more than one system/platform, so you can buy a used C100 on the cheap if you want to have a toe in the S35 pool, while still producing work with m4/3 gear.

BTW: I used to be a Canon DSLR shooter and ended up selling all of my Canon gear after owning a Panasonic GH2 for one month, because I knew I was never going to shoot video with Canon DSLRs ever again.
 
I posted in the "industry news" forum that a Japanese publication had reported that their gub'ment is pushing some sort of an alliance between Nikon and Fujifilm. Mostly because Nikon has been in much disarray lately. And, should something happen there, there's a huge portion of the market that can be picked up.
 
DLD said:
From the point of electronics and sensors, the market is getting into the "too good for the eye" territory. 5K is good enough. 10-bit 400 Mbps Log is good enough. 12-stops are good enough. SDXC cards are good enough. G6 will make another step up in quality to the point where the difference between high end and consumer will be even less noticeable. And, after that, it's the race to the bottom in terms of price. Look at there G7 and GX8 are now. And, in two years, some other camera will sell for $500 and shoot GH5 quality footage and no one will bat an eye.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Amen.
 
filmguy123 said:
The thread seems to have a lot of responses focusing on if M43 is a good format or a viable format. I agree it's a great format, no question there. To clarify my question, my concern is that M43 will "die off" for use in video not because it isn't up to the job, but because massive improvements and price drops in small form factor S35 cameras.
Click to expand...

Same size as APS-C which has been around longer than m43 and yet m43 started and is still here and gets more popular while APS-C is losing popularity. Who even talks about the Canon 7D anymore?

Not everybody that shoots video wants a cinema camera. Most people don't need a s35mm camera at all. That is kind of why m43 exists in the first place and still very relevant today. It became just a great go to camera for video shooters because the format made sense. There are plenty of APS-C and FF DSLR cameras out there and yet the GH series of cameras always gets a ton of press and buzz. People come out of the wood work trying to give reasons why m43 sucks and is horrible and yet the camera win awards and creates a lot of talk everywhere. We still have people begging for a m43 sensor version of the EVA. If m43 is in such danger why is it doing so well? Why is there always so much excitement around new GH cameras? Why is the GH5 only benchmarked and compared to the A7S, A6500, Canon 5D and s35mm cameras? I mean those cameras should absolutely crush the life out of the poor little GH5 right? Well they don't and the reason why you see the GH5 compared to those other higher end cameras is because m43 is breathing down the neck of larger sensor cameras and in many cases holding its own compared to them. When a m43 camera is constantly compared to larger higher end cameras you know it is in the position that it should be in.
 
@Vardalos...well....that's really what it comes down to, regardless what one films with...it's about what the intended audience thinks about the results...not what some guy, on a blog, (insert Cinema 5D here if you like) selling advertising, doing 400 percent magnification to come up with click bait lines have to say...When however one of those audience members happen to be the director of The Godfather, one of the most beautiful films ever shot IMO, one would think it would put the subject to bed!!....It certainly did for me a long time ago...the rest is really up to us.
 
Thomas Smet said:
You can buy a SpeedBooster plus two Sigma f1.8 zooms for the price of what a single f2.0 m43 zoom lens would cost.
Click to expand...

I make the opposite assumption. I would expect a m4/3 mount Sigma 18-35 to cost the same as it does for the other mounts, which would save us the cost of the SpeedBooster. That's no small savings.
 
Jim Simon said:
I make the opposite assumption. I would expect a m4/3 mount Sigma 18-35 to cost the same as it does for the other mounts, which would save us the cost of the SpeedBooster. That's no small savings.
Click to expand...

But then you end up in the Neverland of not-wide-enough and no way to go shorter, with the EF mount giving you both native FL's and speedboosted choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top