GH5 GH6 and the future of M43

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...

Then bring that up to Sigma. That has nothing to do with m43. Yeah Sigma should make a m43 mount but you know the funny thing about that. Rokinon makes m43 cine lenses and yet most people end up buying the EF or Nikon mount versions instead so they can use the SB. You buy the SB once and don't buy it again for each lens and most people would rather have that extra wide FOV and extra stop advantage which does bring them to s35mm territory. You can also use a cheap dummy adapter so no big deal really.
 
I use 6 lenses on an XL speedbooster gaining 1 1/3 stop on each of those lenses!...I consider that incredibly cheap, number one, and it also future proofs the resale value of these lenses, as should I need to for whatever reason, they can get sold back into a much larger camera market one day.
 
I agree that it's reaching good enough territory, and the GH5 kills it. In fact, I agree so much, that it's what warranted the question.

Re: sounding like chicken little, on the contrary! There is a lot of talk here about investing in FF lenses with speedboosters and adaptors for cheaper, and for keeping options open. What I am talking about is going all in on M43 with M43 only native lenses. One of the big benefits of the format is the lens size, but that requires dropping coin on glass. I've already dropped $5K on native glass.. the real question becomes is it worth it to drop another $6k-$8k and round out the kit with say the upcoming Leica 50-200, a fish eye 7-14 Olympus, a native macro, etc. That sort of glass investment is justified only by high confidence in the future of a platform.

If Panasonic is as committed to the GH6, 7, 8, etc. *FOR VIDEO* as much as they have been to the 5 then I think it is justified.

If the GH6 can reach 14 stops DR and an extra 1-2 stops in light via a BSI sensor or other tech innovations, and get ISO 6400 as clean as ISO 3200, and make the other usual processing improvements + feature enhancements and improvements, and offer further enhancements to speed and codecs (with processor die shrinking, etc. 4K 120fps will be totally reasonable by 2019/2020)... it really does reach a point of "good enough" where the investment into larger format cameras and ecosystems may not justify the cost (both in terms of cash, but also in terms of size and weight).

I've got my eye on some native lenses and this is what has inspired the "future confidence" question regarding the VIDEO side of M43 going forward and market conditions.

Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is featherlight and simple. Leica 50-200 looks like it will be excellent. Possibly along with the Leica 100-400. A 7-14 or 8-18 ultra wide would be nice. And a few others: maybe the Lumix 35-100 and the Leica 42.5 f/1.2. Those are large glass investments, especially taken together at around $7K-$8K.
 
About two years ago I sold all of my Nikon gear and went (for me) all in. Much to my surprise as much as I like my EP5 I ended up with 2 gx8's and a GX85 plus the 9-18, 12-35, PL100-400 and a couple of inexpensive lens (7.5, 14 plus WA adapt, Sigma 30, and the 35-100 f4-5.6). I'll probably add either a new body or one of the new WA lens (PL) or a Gx9 body if it comes. I think Olympus and Panasonic have developed a market that appeals to the under 30 crowd and the over say 50 crowd based on cost of really good primes and size. The fact that even the rumored Em10 III is going to have 4 K and the performance of the Gx85 means that younger folks with kit lens can do good video compared to what costs thousands of dollars in the past. M43 is here to stay. Unless Nikon starts to respond with front line mirrorless products only Canon and perhaps Sony will be left in the dual purpose cameras while M43 will, I think, continue to grow in market share. I guess in total I'm about $6-7K and feel quite comfortable that either Pany or Oly or both will be in the market for a long time for they are innovative and niche manufacturers that focus on the competitions weaknesses and their strengths.
 
The future of M4/3 will be in doubt just as soon as Panasonic and Olympus stop producing such good cameras, lens makers stop making such good glass, and third parties stop producing good adaptors for other systems' lenses. M4/3 is such a versatile and "good enough" format in so many ways, and so adaptable to so many other lens formats, and fills a space in the market that tends to offer pretty good bang for your buck that as long as the various manufacturers keep turning out good products, the format isn't going to be going anywhere.
 
The GH5 and EVA1 compliment each other a lot more then they are different. If anything I think the GH6 and beyond will continue to be a gateway drug to the higher end cameras.

No other camera system out there has 4k 10bit 4:2:2 from a $2,000 camera to a $20,000 camera, especially at this quality level. The lens doesn't matter as much as what Panasonic does with the camera body. It doesn't matter if a user uses native m43 glass or EF glass the bodies will still sell and those users might be likely to eventually move up to a EVA or go out and rent a Varicam for a really serious project. The m43 sensor allows both kinds of users. Those who may never buy a native m43 lens and those who only want native lenses.
 
filmguy123 said:
What I am talking about is going all in on M43 with M43 only native lenses.
Click to expand...

Because we have so many lens options with the m4/3 format, there are many pros and cons to using different lens types with the GH5. ( this is why I still use Nikon AI-S lenses along with my native m4/3 lenses )

NATIVE MICRO 4/3 LENSES

PROS

- Many m4/3 lenses are sharp at full aperture ( especially the "pro" lenses ), so you can shoot at f/1.2 and have a sharp image with DOF that matches f/2.4 on a Full Frame camera

- Most m4/3 lenses are significantly smaller and lighter than their equivalents in other formats

- Most m4/3 lenses are made for video, so they are almost silent when focusing or changing aperture

- Many m4/3 lenses have built-in OIS ( Panasonic lenses can use DUAL IS mode )

- There are many fast m4/3 prime lenses available ( native f/1.0, f/1.2, f/1.4 lenses are easy to find )

CONS

- Most m4/3 lenses cost as much as APS-C or Full Frame lenses ( no cost saving here )

- You can't use these lenses with any other camera format ( they are permanently m4/3 lenses )


ADAPTED FF / APS-C LENSES

PROS

- These lenses can be adapted to many different camera formats ( not limited to m4/3 )

- Using Speedbooster adapters you gain at least 1 F-stop in aperture performance

- Lots of fast lenses available

- Lots of good used lenses on the market, sometimes going for a fraction of their original price

CONS

- Lenses are often "soft" at full aperture, so you may have to stop-down the aperture 1-2 F-stops to obtain a sharp image from corner to corner

- Bigger and heavier than m4/3 lenses

- Many lenses are noisy when focusing or changing aperture ( not made for video work )

- Auto-focus performance is often slower than native m4/3 lenses

- OIS not as common as m4/3 lenses, and may not work when adapted to m4/3 cameras

- Dual IS is not possible with adapted lenses

- Not many fast APS-C primes available


filmguy123 said:
If the GH6 can reach 14 stops DR and an extra 1-2 stops in light via a BSI sensor or other tech innovations, and get ISO 6400 as clean as ISO 3200, and make the other usual processing improvements + feature enhancements and improvements, and offer further enhancements to speed and codecs (with processor die shrinking, etc. 4K 120fps will be totally reasonable by 2019/2020)... it really does reach a point of "good enough" where the investment into larger format cameras and ecosystems may not justify the cost (both in terms of cash, but also in terms of size and weight).
Click to expand...

I don't expect m4/3 cameras to equal the performance of Super35 cameras for at least 5 years, but I don't think the difference will be very large. Like anything, you pick the features that you want and live with the ones that you don't.


filmguy123 said:
Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is featherlight and simple.
Click to expand...

The inexpensive Rokinon 50mm f/1.2 in m4/3 mount is a relatively cheap lens ( less than $400 ), is sharp wide-open when used on a m4/3 camera ( unlike all of the FF "soft" nifty-fifty lenses from Canon/Nikon/Zeiss that have to be stopped down 1-2 F-stops ) and has the same shallow DOF look as the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 lens. Yes it's a fully manual lens, but it's a heck of a lot cheaper than the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 lens. I don't expect the same performance as the Panasonic lens, but it is still a great m4/3 lens.
 
Last edited:
filmguy123 said:
I've already dropped $5K on native glass.. the real question becomes is it worth it to drop another $6k-$8k.
Click to expand...

Here is where I start to sound like your father. Do you really need to spend $10,000 on lenses?

I'm going to take a wild guess that your sales would be unaffected if all you had was the 12-40mm and 35-100mm. These are constant-aperture f-2.8 and are $600 each on eBay. In fact you could get along fine with much less than that, say a single, variable-aperture zoom. That's practicality speaking.

Yes, but what about art? If it's art that you're in it for, your expenses should be even less. Because then you would not be choosing lenses based on millimetric coverage but on perspective. You freely choose exactly how far you stand from your subject. Then you choose focal length to crop the composition. So you need just two or three primes, and probably nothing extreme, and even then you could rent.

Maybe this post comes across like ice water. But you have to admit it's a lot easier to practice a little discipline on yourself than to practice a little prophecy about someone else, or about a whole industry. Your anxiety about the future of Four Thirds goes away if you're only spending $1,500 instead of $15,000, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
People are already talking about the GH6? FFS!!

And yes +$13K in m43 lenses is a complete waste of money, unless you're making money because you own those lenses like an OLYMPUS ambassador or something.
 
So you wouldn't invest that much into the M43 glass, but you would in EF glass? (maybe not you, but many would). Just saying, wisdom on how $$ to invest in glass not withstanding, assuming one loves the M43 format, doesn't that reflect confidence in the format and the future? Afterall, if the future of video M43 is only brighter and stronger why NOT? The small size/weight and Dual IS of many pieces of native glass is part of what makes the format shine.

It seems not many would bat an eye at dropping $10k+ on a set of Zeiss Milvus primes + a couple Canon EF zooms with AF.
 
As a former Canon shooter with a few really nice L lenses, I'll say that the Panasonic lens lineup is by far and away the best value for money in the game!

Another thing that makes the GH5 and m4 system so incredible is the ETC option. It allows two effective focal length options for each lens. Either 2x or 2.7x crop. This allows 4 primes and a long zoom to cover everything from 7.5mm-400mm with nearly every other option in between. I'm not a zoom guy so right now with what is available this would be my ultimate setup.
7.5mm f/2 (15 or 19mm with etc)
12mm f/1.4 (24 or 32mm)
25mm f/1.2 (50 or 68mm)
42.5mm f/1.2 (85 or 115)
100-400mm (200 to 1080mm)

You simply can't get that kind of range vs performance in any other system at any price in 5 lenses !!! I'm a cheapskate and own 7.5mm f/3.5, 12mm f/2, 15mm f/1.7, 17mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.4, 42.5mm f/1.7 and 100-300mm f/4-5.6. Someday maybe :)
 
My current native m43 lens setup:

4x Voigtlander full prime set (10.5, 17.5, 25, 42.5). I love these lenses and wouldn't shoot M43 without them. Superb IQ and I love the manual focus control.

12mm Olympus f/2. Great gimbal lens, one of my first m43 lenses

Lumix 12-35 f/2.8. I got this for a run'n'gun docu zoom lens and for the Dual IS and for gimbal work with adjustable focal length. I'd sell the olympus 12mm, but for the small cash influx it would provide I'd rather keep it on hand for the b-camera or options.

Olympus 60mm Macro. It's a macro, it's native, what else is there to say.


In top consideration:

Leica 50-200 f/2.8-4 when it launches, guessing around $1500. Would be great for telephoto reach, sports, and a Dual IS long zoom.

Olympus 75mm f/1.8 all about the shallow DOF and the super lightweight here, could be a great dedicated portrait. But I may go with an adapted Nikkor 85mm instead.

Lumix 35-100 f/2.8 Looks great for docu and run'n'gun but may be redundant given the upcoming Leica 50-200...

7-14mm wide from Olympus (f/2.8 pro). Or the 8-18 from Leica, a bit slower, but it's Leica optics. For use when extreme or ultra wide is needed. I don't tend to gravitate to this look much so it's near the bottom of my list, but it's the one base that isn't covered and that cannot be adapted.

Nice but Unnecessary Bonus Consideration... but low on list:

Leica 42.5 f/1.2 - this lens is so raved about, I feel borderline guilty for not having it. Also, the voigtlander is superb but has no IS or AF. I prefer how the voigt is matched to my prime set and for video with its superb manual focus control, but Dual IS for some video could be handy on the Leica, and also allow me good capability for stills. However, it's in the "low on list" category because it'd be nice to have, but it's an expensive purchase to justify (unless I'll be with M43 for a looongg time).

Leica 25 f/1.4 - same rational as above, but to give my favorite focal length a quality option with AF for use in stills

Leica 100-400 - for extreme zoom reach for sports and wildlife, or hidden camera. Also Dual IS. Low on my list because it's expensive and the extra 200-400 (past the leica 50-200) would only be used for special scenarios.

Leica 12mm f/1.4 - Considering selling the Olympus f/2 to upgrade to this option, for the AF and Dual IS, and the super lightweight body with Leica glass look. Good for gimbal also. But it's an expensive upgrade even when selling the Olympus f/2 and this focal range is already well covered in my set. Could still be a nice and useful upgrade though, but low on my list.


----------

Point is, I could see many of these being great pieces of kit to own... given a long, solid, fruitful future for the format in stills and photo, especially if one is drawn to the lightweight nature and perks of m43. But, while I feel very justified with where I'm at in current kit, any of these additional purchases seem to warrant the question... is it worth it for the long haul and long term future prospects? If so, I could see the majority of these being great lenses to trickle into the tool bag for a variety of shooting scenarios.
 
filmguy123 said:
So you wouldn't invest that much into the M43 glass, but you would in EF glass? (maybe not you, but many would). Just saying, wisdom on how $$ to invest in glass not withstanding, assuming one loves the M43 format, doesn't that reflect confidence in the format and the future? Afterall, if the future of video M43 is only brighter and stronger why NOT? The small size/weight and Dual IS of many pieces of native glass is part of what makes the format shine.

It seems not many would bat an eye at dropping $10k+ on a set of Zeiss Milvus primes + a couple Canon EF zooms with AF.
Click to expand...

With paid productions, by and large, if anyone is using a m43 system for video it's because either the people hiring them have lower expectations or they're taking advantage of its smaller footprint. By lower expectations I'm strictly talking about image quality and not the content. Weddings, corporates, documentaries, certain commercials etc.. If someone is hiring a videographer who is a bride, marketing/PR person, small business owner, and NOT a producer then chances are they aren't concerned with the type of camera - they want the video and they don't care how they get it. In contrast, there's less pressure to have an inventory that producers have heard of, buzzwords they've latched onto e.g. "Canon L lenses", "RED", "LED lighting etc.".

My point is you can get away with less using m43 by virtue of the shoots not expecting as much equipment. It's all relative - those buying $10K+ on EF lenses are probably (I hope!) getting paid more so it's less of an issue.

In EF I only own a Sigma 18-35 and Canon 70-200 ii. I really like smaller cameras like you but actually thought the 12mm was too small. I think nikkor sized primes are the sweet spot for size and feel when focusing. If AF gets to a point where we're not focusing manually then bring on the tiny lenses again. In the end if you're a working professional, $10K is not that much. You're speaking about the future and if having all of those tools is helping your work, helping you land work, or helping creatively then it could certainly be worth it.
 
Not just talking. I'm dreaming about the GH6 and its internal electronic variable ND filter, 4k @ 120p, BSI sensor with 14 stops, clean ISO at 6400, and... oh wait... where are we again?!
 
Fair points Rob! That makes sense. I often forget about those as I've never actually worked under producers as such... the way my career unfolded I've always operated as a smaller agency, where the end client hires me and I act as producer/director/DP/etc. So gear questions don't come up.

I really do love the M43 format, which has dawned on me more with the GH5. I always looked at the AF100/GH4 as a stop gap until S35, and in many ways I'm still waiting for the big jump to S35... but more than ever this year I've embraced M43. The GH5 is just that good, and the way IBIS and internal 10-bit and the much improved IQ and ISO performance enable me to work with such a small, lightweight and versatile platform is really spectacular.

So, perhaps I'm just over-enthused by the platform at the moment, and trying to temper myself from jumping too fast feet first into m43 only to get heartbroken if/when my aforementioned GH6/7/etc. dream doesn't come true and I'm left in a pool of my own tears and obsolete (for video) m43 glass.

If I was going EF invests, I too would pick the Sigma 18-35 and Canon 70-200, along with Zeiss Milvus 35 and 50 as a starter kit, later adding a few more Milvus primes (and perhaps a couple more zooms/AF capable lenses when the tech further matures). But doing so now and coupling it with the GH5 really undercuts some of my favorite things about the platform... those Milvus primes alone weigh twice my entire lens/camera/battery/memory setup right now.
 
I still own a GH2, two GH4s....will sell one to pick up a 2nd GH5 and still the 8-18 and the Oly 75 1.8...most of my glass gives me S35 with speedbooster so that's not an issue...like your voightlanders I own a set of Slr magics in M4/3...unlike you though, the 8-18 Leica is for my use one, of the most exciting lenses I'm waiting for...if Panasonic and Olympus today discontinued M4/3 line and I could still buy the Leica 8-18 and the Oly 75..I would without any hesitation... I could effortlessly shoot on this system for 10 years and beyond....for me the significant and important developement I'm keeping an eye on, is in lighting, and the portability of the LED lighting systems, for those answer the DR question of the M4/3 system perfectly...as for the "other" camera in the "pro" line...if I get funding for a feature I have in developement, Production would immediately by the Varicam LT....I would have no hesitation using these 2 systems combined...my M4/3 gear will always have a place in the tool kit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top