GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

I did, it was a great camera, a lot of fun as I'm a mirorrless guy. And the highest quality mode or two was clearly better than its other compressions/resolutions, but it was the same "bleh" Canon video. Nicer than their previous offerings but nothing special once my hype evaporated.

I was comparing some of my 5D Mark IV footage to it at the time (didn't talk about it), and the former was just as good visually in the grand scheme on the world wide web.
 
Hype will get you. I try to keep my expectations realistic compared to my usage and price point. I know I will only get good video not cine quality but that is my realistic operating space. I really only need AF for gimbal work. I would hate to choose a camera on gimbal usage alone. At least the bit depth has moved to 10bit and beyond in many models so one can have more control in post to improve the images.
 
Samuel Dilworth said:
A Four Thirds sensor is at least a couple of hundred dollars cheaper than a full-frame one. That becomes compelling when the total price of the camera is low. At $2500, this benefit is worth less (but not worthless).

Therefore, I think Panasonic needs to ease down the price of the GH-series cameras. I suspect that will start happening already with the GH6, which might be less innovative than previous cameras were, releative to the rest of the market. But cheaper. Fine by me.

The other major benefit of Micro Four Thirds is the wide range of smaller and cheaper lenses available. There remains a market for cheaper cameras as long as they’re not dumbed down for people who would prefer to point and shoot. That worked in the past. Nowadays, people who still buy standalone cameras want to be involved in the process. So cheap cameras today must still be enthusiast-focused, just less full-featured, bleeding-edge in tech, and solidly built than high-end cameras.

The mistake is to assume there’s no market for cheap cameras just because the old approach of aiming cheap cameras at non-photographers no longer works.
Click to expand...

I agree, the "cheap camera for non-photographers" market is nearly dead. Smartphones killed that.

But that doesn't mean the entire "cheap camera" market is dead in all its forms.

Not everyone is a professional cameraman, or a hobbyist while being a dentist/doctor/banker at their day job.

Thus there remains a strong enough market for a US$1.5K-ish priced camera (a GH6) and a US$750-ish camera (G85mk2) and a US$400ish body (GX850mk2).

That initial pricing difference between a MFT and FF sensor from the manufacture will allow Panasonic to hit those price points while still cramming in a lot of features into the cameras.

As camera brands fret over even just a fifty dollar price point difference, as that changes who the buyers are for a camera.

Plus let's not ignore the size benefits either! There is a large size/weight difference between a couple of bodies with a full lens kit when it is FF vs MFT.
This matters a lot for documentary shooters, or anybody else who travels a lot. Or simply anybody else who wants a lighter bag, be it hikers or retirees.
 
NorBro said:
I did, it was a great camera, a lot of fun as I'm a mirorrless guy. And the highest quality mode or two was clearly better than its other compressions/resolutions, but it was the same "bleh" Canon video. Nicer than their previous offerings but nothing special once my hype evaporated.

I was comparing some of my 5D Mark IV footage to it at the time (didn't talk about it), and the former was just as good visually in the grand scheme on the world wide web.
Click to expand...

Wait for the R1!
 
I'll get lava stone countertops if I want to look at something pretty and expensive that just sits there. lol
 
Just sits there? I dont follow.

It's possible that the R1 will bring canon stills quality to video. At the very least, it'll be a functional R5, though perhaps you've soured on the R5
 
There's certainly no chance I'll buy it, no matter how good it is. Even if I hadn't just invested in e mount glass. The $3500 a7siii was more than I wanted to spend on that type of camera. I'd rather spend 2000-2500. Not that it isn't worth it. But something in the a7iv/s5/r6 tier can pretty much get the job done too. The A7SIII was just the only fully featured fully functional unit available at this time
 
I had a rule of no cameras over $3000 for the last 3 years. I made an exception for the R5 because the entire package was something that hadn't been seen in a long time (or maybe never), but that will never happen again. $2000 is the absolute maximum moving forward.
 
Peter C. said:
I'm actually talking about an industry/marketing/engineering standpoint. MFT is a relatively new format and at the time when FF sensors were expensive, sony, canon and nikon offered inexpensive lenses and cameras based around APS-c. Those companies had robust lens families with mounts that had been used for decades. Panasonic which didn't have that advantage could have used their lens mount but chose not to. They put all their effort into a small sensor with no room to grow.
Click to expand...
Back then, it was impossible to predict the extraordinary appeal that full-frame would have in the market. (Even today I find this slightly bewildering.)

The initial appeal was as you say: to use existing Canon and Nikon lens ranges that had been designed for 135-format film. That was worth a lot to Canon and Nikon (and Sony, ex Konica Minolta, to a lesser extent), but no-one starting a digital camera system from scratch would have thought to use a legacy film format that saddled you with a load of manufacturing and cost problems in exchange for hitting some arbitrary performance point that no-one had any reason to suspect would be special.

If anything, engineers expected to be able to reduce the sensor size while retaining adequate quality, since the image sensor was more efficient than film at capturing photons. Indeed, early Kodak and Olympus Four Thirds brochures talk about this.

But since Canon had the most to gain by retaining a lens range, they made tremendous efforts to get full-frame CMOS sensors off the ground, doing crazy things like aligning multiple exposures at the lithography stage. There was a Canon ‘white paper’ floating about boasting about how expensive full-frame sensors were to make. Good advertising in retrospect!

This era (from the EOS-1Ds to the original 5D for Canon) cemented the impression in the public imagination that full-frame was something special. The cameras didn’t have a one-stop noise advantage over Nikon DX as physics predicted but more than that, because Nikon had worse sensor tech.

Then, when Nikon moved from DX to FX with the D3, they made a simultaneous leap in sensor tech. This again gave an advantage to full-frame cameras that had nothing to do with the sensor size but compounded the apparent benefit.

By now, Canon and Nikon were designing new lenses for full-frame digital, and the format had become entrenched against the odds.

The move to mirrorless would have been another opportunity to start from scratch with an optimised sensor area, but by then the full-frame size (which is no fuller than any other designed-for sensor, of course, but even the jargon works in its favour) already had a market draw that could not be denied.

Conversely, Micro Four Thirds (and APS-C and even Super 35 for cinema) now has an image problem.

And it’s a quirk of history that no-one wants anything fuller than full-frame, although those sensors exist too.

All of this works against Panasonic with the GH range, but as I suggested upthread, it also gives Panasonic a unique opportunity: they can throw tech and firmware features at the GH6 with less worry about cannibalising higher-end cameras, since the high-end cameras retain the trump card of a larger sensor for differentiation. Canon and Sony cannot so easily do that with their mirrorless cameras, since those cameras already have what many people really want – a full-frame sensor – hence the necessary ‘crippling’.

Nikon, meanwhile, has no high-end video camera range to worry about, but they have been late to recognise the value of video. I think they have belatedly understood this and will make a major effort on video in the next generation of Z cameras – potentially giving Canon and Sony a headache.
 
Last edited:
IronFilm said:
Plus let's not ignore the size benefits either! There is a large size/weight difference between a couple of bodies with a full lens kit when it is FF vs MFT. This matters a lot for documentary shooters, or anybody else who travels a lot. Or simply anybody else who wants a lighter bag, be it hikers or retirees.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what happened with my wife. She had a Nikon D7000 APS-C camera that she really liked a lot, and had a couple of lenses for it. But the size/weight got too much for her, and we sold the Nikon and got a Panasonic GH3. We haven't looked back... she is a serious hobbyist with excellent Photoshop skills, so she is picky about image quality (mostly photo quality). Her go-to camera now is a Panasonic GX8, while I have the GH5.
 
A few points -

size matters ... the smaller, the better.

But, here once comes to the difference between photography and videography. In photo, one can control the exposure. In video, one's kind of screwed. In photo, one wants a higher res. In video, one wants the DR, the readout and the codec. This was one of the reasons why the MFT alliance split along the photocentric (Olympus) and the videocentric (Panasonic). The problem was that neither could choose their sensor and it worked out fine for Panasonic, where 16 MPX was fine for the 4K video. It hadn't worked out for Olympus because a current generation of smartphones has as many as 108.

But, as I am sure everyone understands, smartphones gun up the gain at low light, then apply heavy noise reduction, then oversharpen the leftovers internally. This works reasonably well for Facebook and Instagram but it ain't exactly suitable for the high quality video. Obviously, there is some gain and some noise reduction in every model but, for those who do their own post, it doesn't need to be done in camera. Meaning that an 8K MFT is likely to have some nasty artifacts in video.

And this leads to larger pixels/wells and larger sensors. Cost-wise, there was a huge difference. Ages ago. Look up full frame replacement sensors on eBay. They're around $300 (R5 is probably going to be more). Working of the formula where the retail spare parts pricing is roughly four times the cost of manufacturing brings the full frame sensor production costs to $75-$100/module. The smartphone sensors range from $6-$10/photo module for 12 MPX on Apple to $35/module for 108 MPX on Samsung. In other words, the modern production methods make the retail cost difference fairly negligible, $200-$500 between MFT, APS-C and FF on the high end. And once medium format starts being less exclusive, it'll be the next step for both photo and cinema.

And that's because over the last 70 years or so, prior to the emergence of the digital systems, big budget features were shot on the 65mm anyway. Even these days, Tarantino, Spielberg and Nolan prefer 65mm film. Right now, for digital acquisition, Alexa65 would be their only choice. (Fuji GFX100 can shoot video too but it line skips due to its 108 MPX). This will change soon enough and, as is the case with history repeating, within a few years this will trickle down to the consumer/low end pro level.

And none of the above portends well for MFT.
 
DLD said:
A few points -

And none of the above portends well for MFT.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm pretty sure not even Spielberg's non-union Mexican counterpart would be using a SLR of any type to shoot their next feature, much less a micro four thirds sensor sized one....

However, I will be.

That's because my films will never be shown at a movie theatre. Neither will yours. There's no shame in that of course - movie theatres were a dying breed before Covid, and look to be all but completely dead by the time it finally fades. WONDER WOMAN 2 & BLACK WIDOW were just announced to have no theatrical debuts at all; they're going straight to streaming. And those are billion dollar tent pole franchises with $100 million plus budgets.

Perhaps more importantly, the younger generation rarely watches movies even on large TV sets anymore. My children's ages range from 10-22 and when they watch movies (which is relatively rare) it is on a laptop or cellphone. They only watch movies on the "big" TV when we watch them together as a family.

For all the angsting about sensor size vs DoF and the potential for noise, the reality is that for most productions - including large budget Hollywood films - will never see a big screen. And what we consider "big screen" is still laughably small compared to the screens people watched movies on in the '50's and '60's. If eventually theatres do re-open, the fact remains that most viewings - even of billion dollar grossing films - will eventually come from watching them on screens 65" or smaller.

Put another way, the most popular production on Netflix is THE OFFICE, a decade plus old show shot on the 2/3" sensor Sony HDW-F900; a camera now going for $719.00 on ebay.

My $600 used Oly em1 mii destroys that camera in about every way possible, especially in terms of ease of use. And ease of use & overall image quality is what counts in the end. 99% of people watching movies or shows don't care about one wit about noise, DoF, rolling shutter, or any other technical detail, other than perhaps it being in focus and having good sound.

Thus, as shooters, we're really talking about diminishing returns in terms of new tech, especially from MFT manufacturers. Just because full frame tech has caught up in terms of bit rates, IBIS, and rolling shutter doesn't negate the MFT format - it just means that it's another club in the golf bag.

If you want super shallow DoF or the ability to shoot a scene using only a single candle, then you're probably going to be attracted to FF cameras. If you're a one man band, you're likely to want excellent out of camera color and great auto-focus in a small package. And so on.

The word "hype" has mentioned a few times and I think that's mostly what we're talking about as any of the cameras we all already own are more then capable enough of making something that a billion people would watch. And I think all of us lose sight of that. Doesn't mean we shouldn't want better cameras, but at this point we're talking about very minor improvements (other than perhaps better AF in the Panny line), improvements that are very specific to our individual needs.

Personally, I'll be happy if Olympus puts out an EM1 MIV with 10 bit all-I internal recording, a dedicated WB button, and better slo-mo, or Panasonic "combines" the GH5 with the GH5s with good auto-focus with better out of camera colors. That's it. That's all I want, all I need. If either does that, I can stand pat for years....

...At least until they start pushing 3D again in an attempt to make all of our cameras obsolete.
 
JV, JB (say that twice) made a very good looking video with his Olympus camera. But technology moves forward and the business environment changes as well. In my opinion, trends are pretty clear - small sensor smartphones are taking over the consumer side and, as a response similar to how Hollywood began shooting in widescreen and in color to set itself apart from the emerging television industry of the 1950's, the photo-video manufacturers have clearly began to move toward larger sensors. MFT and APS-C are becoming solely an entry level product (one can argue some EF APS-C Canons being legacy models to satisfy millions already with the EF glass), while full frame cameras are already available for the enthusiasts and pros at very reasonable prices. And one can pick up a medium format stills model for around five grand now too.

The high end video production is being dominated by the Alexa LF iterations, a twin ALEV sensor rather than a single on the original Alexas and Amiras. The lower end pro (A7SIII, FX-6, FX-9, R6, R5) is moving toward FF as well. C70 and C300 MKIII are s35 but C500 MKII is FF. It's not happening instantly but it's happening nonetheless.

This is looking at the industry in general. After that, one can make own decisions. As s/he should.
 
DLD said:
.... technology moves forward and the business environment changes as well.
Click to expand...

That having been said, if Panasonic are game, then I'm certainly interested to see what they could deliver.

But as has been mentioned before, they did leave a way out via the S5.
 
When I was in college in the early-mid-1980's, our marketing professor never lost a chance to mention Theodore Leavitt (then the editor of the "Harvard Business Review" and the author of "Marketing Myopia"). One quote stuck with me, "Make what you can sell, not sell what you can make". I think that's where Panasonic finds itself. It has quality engineers to make pretty much anything that the technology of the day allows. Whether they can move enough units to justify the investment is another story.
 
Talk of MFT as/vs a cinemas format is IMO dumb..

MFT has hope IMO as 'the new 2/3' but for that to happen someone needs to get developing a lens that matches a 2/3 lens but is more affordable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top