GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

morgan_moore said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well...I feel like it's dumb because the fashions of the day are heading in the exact opposite direction (larger and larger sensors). So, in that sense, I dont think the market is headed there. There's no reason you couldn't use them for cinema.

Agree re:it being the new 2/3 though. Such a lens would be awesome.... 12-120 f/2.8 with great AF and IS
 
The Olympus 12-100mm f4 is the closest there is, quite a lump but I wonder how big an equivalent f2.8 would be
 
that olympus is only 1.23lbs and 4.50" long! great range. i mean, i suppose one could do with an f/4 lens in a pinch. if you have gh5s high ISO performance. what you really need, though, is the proper mechanics and servo zoom, etc. and a lanc controller port on the lens or the camera or something. and eND. and xlr inputs or a module. then you'd be cooking with gas.

and the whole camera/lens/aks package would probably cost the same as a Canon 18-80, which is a good lens but has an inferior range
 
Remember that 'the 2.8' look on full frame needs 1.4 on MFT

A proper pro zoom would not be 4 which would have the FF F8 look.

Id say 2 or 2.8

It would have to be a proper lens.. or at least as good/bad as the sony 18-110 which is not a fine lens but is usable and affordable.

As soon as one gets onto a motorised fuji 2/3 or canon cn17 you know you are playing with a proper thing for grown ups to go to work with.

Ahalpert is correct in that that feel is what is needed maybe more than speed.
 
Well I think the question is if you're willing to sacrifice the look of a wider aperture for the sake of size and cost. Then for beauty shallow DOF shots, you pop over to your Noktons or a speedboosted lens.

My sony 28-135 tripod collar arrived (the used copy came without it) and I now have it mounted and balanced on the ronin-s with a7s3...still determining the best way to control zoom
 
morgan_moore said:
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.
Click to expand...

morgan_moore said:
Remember that 'the 2.8' look on full frame needs 1.4 on MFT
Click to expand...

At first blush, it looks like you are arguing in both directions at once, but maybe I missed some nuance.

If you want 4/3 to be the new 2/3, then you want a long zoom with a moderate depth of field. The 12-100mm f/4, then, is decent --- an 8x lens with a depth of field equivalent to f/2 on 2/3.

On the other hand, if you want 4/3 to match the depth of field of 135, then yes, you need a wide aperture, like f/1.4. But then you ain't never gonna have a long zoom range, not in a moderately sized lens anyway.
 
The DVC200 is the attempt at M4/3rds replacing 2/3". Imho, 1" is a better choice for production type cameras and to emulate 2/3". The CX350 has great characteristics for zoom range, noise and weight. I wish it had more DR but a more expensive model could be made. As Combat pointed out, one can not mix the two looks (ENG & EFP) and be commercially viable.
 
Bassman2003 said:
The DVC200 is the attempt at M4/3rds replacing 2/3". Imho, 1" is a better choice for production type cameras and to emulate 2/3". The CX350 has great characteristics for zoom range, noise and weight. I wish it had more DR but a more expensive model could be made. As Combat pointed out, one can not mix the two looks (ENG & EFP) and be commercially viable.
Click to expand...

Unless Im wrong.. (I dont follow them) the DVX200 and CX350 are flawed..
fixed lens
crappy codecs/bit depth
no log looks
1985 autofocus

THe GH5s is not hobbled like those. My single experience of the GH5s I thought the picture was better than my FS7

to me the idea would be..
-a grown up ish zoom for actuality
-some grown up well placed connectors
-do your fancy stuff with a 25 0.95 prime (interviews) or big scencs with a 9mm prime
 
The dvx200 - right. Except it's not an interchangeable lens camera and the codecs are crappy.

But it has a 13x 2.8-4.5 lens. That's what I'm talking about!
 
I've heard that with integrated lenses, they can cut corners. By mating the camea to the lens, the camera electronically can correct for:

- variofocus
- breathing
- chromatic aberrations
- etc.

Therefore, I'm not sure if an interchangeable lens can be as small, light, and good as an integrated one.

Nevertheless I agree, would rather have an interchangeable mount, so I can choose my own zooms and, for those shallow-focus shots, attach primes.
 
You can get in-camera corrections for various flaws like CA and distortion on mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. All you need are lens profiles. I'm sure they could do the same thing here
 
That's a good point. I'm a little behind the times. But the big thing with an integrated lens was "variofocal tracking". They could use a lens that wasn't parfocal but make it act parfocal, because the camera would constantly adjust focus, according to some preprogrammed formula, as you zoom.

I'm unsure if parfocality contributes to size and weight, but it seems to. The cheapest and lightest lenses seem to be variofocal. (But those also have ramping apertures, which may reduce size and weight more than parfocality).

Need a camera rep to chime in here ;) My knowledge of lensmaking is a smorgasborg of blog and forum posts, not very reliable.
 
I think it is a moot point as M4/3rds is barely hanging on with interchangeable stills cameras, much less a specialty video camera implementation unless you want a box with a mount on it. Integrated is probably the farthest it will go. I do not see a motorized f2.8 servo zoom lens being created on speculation and powering it is not really built into any of the camera bodies either.
 
Defo 'integrated' lenses can pull off a lot of stunts like being 'parfocal' defishing and the like - no reason AFAIK that as long as the meta data is managed properly that one could not have a removable zoom lens that had this functionality.

I dont dissaprove. Making a zoom lens is either gonna cost or need every cheat in the book where an example of a cheat is closing to T4 and ramping the ISO when zooming

We are talking about a contant aquisition camera here.

--

Bassman

You are right - its either a non starter or some one (like panny) sits down and decides that as they are a market failure* getting whipped in the S35 and bigger club by sony and canon they should put thier design thoughts into a different direction - a vagely cinematic content aquisition device


*the thread is 'who is interested in GH6' -> basically no one, certainly not until AF is top notch.
 
With in-camera upres, one can get longer reach with crops and fake zooms too. Smartphones can double the res without much loss. Of course, one can do that in post as well.
 
morgan_moore said:
the thread is 'who is interested in GH6' -> basically no one
Click to expand...

au contraire, I saw some posts expressing interest. As for me, the first company to make something like a $2,000 stills-camera body + global shutter will catch my interest, with a sensor anywhere from S16 to 135, and a resolution anywhere from 2K+.
 
I primarily shoot on these camcorders so I can speak to the issue. Since these aren't parafocal lenses, the camera will change the focus when you zoom even if the camera is set to manual. In low light/contrast situations it can incorrectly modify the focus. The problem is you have no control over what its doing. You can get soft images despite setting the focus. Because these sensors are so small the dof is large it's not a huge issue. I was taught to zoom in get my focus then pull back but that's no longer the proper method.

I saw the Cx350 mentioned, despite its short comings with a built in variable lens, it's an excellent and versatile camera, and I believe it can film in log, and the codec better than what you would normally get with this style of camera. These cameras have a use and in many circumstances run circles around cinema cameras.
 
Would be great to see more M43 super zooms for ENG. I hate the idea of integrated zooms, because it seems like such a waste to throw out the whole camcorder when upgrading down the road, and as a result, often causing the use of cheaper zooms, instead of better ones.

If they made more M43 fast par focal super zooms for ENG work, I would be very interested in all things M43. As it stands, I am not interested in M43. The BMP4K offered and interesting option when it came out because it was one of the few low cost raw cameras. But that time has past for me now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top