GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

[filmguy123]

MFT is making a comeback...

https://www.cined.com/stacked-sony-m...-a-big-future/

Looking forward to more details on the GH6. I think I've already said it multiple times throughout the thread so I won't beat a deadhorse, but I don't think it will take much to move the MFT format into an equitable realm as things plateua a bit. No, M43 will never be ideal for shooting 180fps lowlight content or ultra wide angle shallow DOF. But this is a good sign that things may reach the point where the GH6 will be my go to even when sitting right next to an S1H.

 

[DLD]

MFT is making a comeback...

That's up to the market. Personally, I don't see it happening. There'll be some new units out - like this thread's main topic GH-6 - but the field has moved on. GH-4 and GH-5 were huge success stories for Panasonic. It's unlikely to be repeated again.

 

[NorBro]

That's up to the market. Personally, I don't see it happening. There'll be some new units out - like this thread's main topic GH-6 - but the field has moved on. GH-4 and GH-5 were huge success stories for Panasonic. It's unlikely to be repeated again.

It depends who you're talking about. Photographers, definitely...at least most of them.

But Blackmagic's MFT 4K Pocket and 6K Pocket (smaller than S35) has most likely outsold multiple Canon and Sony cameras combined.

There's a very good chance a thought-provoking portion of the market could swing if they follow the same business model of incorporating advanced features into the smaller sensors which is what they did before any of the other hybrid, larger sensors had them.

Have to keep in mind that there are pretty much 3 companies people will consider for a stills/photo hybrid and not everyone is going to spend $6500+ for 8K.

So this leaves plenty of room for Panasonic to regain some of its share with a nice 8K MFT camera with great 6K or 4K, 120fps or 240ps, more dynamic range, fantastic IBIS, better low-light performance, maybe improved AF...just an updated and advanced, small 2021 package for $2K.

I think the bottom line is that they have to sell something. And if Canon and Sony will keep them alive and want them in the business then going back to their roots with a very good, high-end MFT model makes a lot of sense because video people who will buy it.

 

[Thomas Smet]

If I have to choose between m43 and FF I'm going to choose m43 every time. I have no desire to use FF. APS-C or 35mm make 1000x more sense to me but even then they really don't provide a ton of advantage over m43. Especially when one adds a focal reducer.

What may end up killing m43 however is the move to native mirrorless mounts like Canon R. Eventually we will no longer be able to adapt FF lenses to m43 and thats going to suck. With that said EF lenses even in the used market will be common for at least ten years to come. They may even go down in price as photographers replace their Nikon and Canon mirrored glass with smaller and lighter mirrorless mount glass.

I honestly don't see much reason for people to abandon m43. At the end of the day all sensor sizes have pros and cons. From a video perspective it makes so much more sense to use a $1,300 P4k or a GH5S with a 1:1 pixel sensor. Only other option out there like that in a DSLR form factor is the A7S cameras which cost a ton more. Eventually we will move beyond 4k video but we are not there yet. Fro ma stills perspective I'm still not entirely convinced m43 sucks. There are some amazing seasoned photographers that have switched to Olympus cameras and lenses. Olympus actually has a rather impressive pro market.

Forget about low light and DOF for a second. To many nature photographers they love m43 because of the extra reach while still having 20MP stills. Most FF cameras that crop images down to that FOV end up with 8-12 MP stills. Plus m43 glass is designed to resolve detail for a 2x crop factor while FF glass is not and tends to suffer when cropped. If The GH6 manages 24MP that will be even better and actually on par with many APS-C or FF cameras in a similar price range.

Yes I realize FF pros have shot amazing nature shots in the past but some of those require insanely expensive and heavy glass. A lot of those focal lengths are not even yet an option in many mirrorless FF mounts. no matter what m43 will always have a reach advantage over FF. At least until we can no longer get EF lenses to adapt. I refuse to get a S5 for this very reason. I hate the limit of FF, the cost of the L mount mirrorless lenses and the limited selection of such lenses. I don't mind APS-C but the market is abandoning that more than m43. Eventually we may be left with only FF and m43 as the only choices and for many users that don't need insane DOF m43 makes a ton of sense.

Keep in mind not every user wants razor thin DOF either. Even if a camera has decent AF they still want to see more in focus and not just an eyeball. Yes FF lenses can be stopped down to help with that focal plane but then you are forcing the camera to use more ISO in low light situation which kind of offsets any advantage FF actually has. FF may have an advantage for film makers that love razor thin DOF but not every person wants that. If you ask me thats totally overused anyway.

 

[DLD]

It depends who you're talking about. Photographers, definitely...at least most of them.

But Blackmagic's MFT 4K Pocket and 6K Pocket (smaller than S35) has most likely outsold multiple Canon and Sony cameras combined.

There's a very good chance a thought-provoking portion of the market could swing if they follow the same business model of incorporating advanced features into the smaller sensors which is what they did before any of the other hybrid, larger sensors had them.

Have to keep in mind that there are pretty much 3 companies people will consider for a stills/photo hybrid and not everyone is going to spend $6500+ for 8K.

So this leaves plenty of room for Panasonic to regain some of its share with a nice 8K MFT camera with great 6K or 4K, 120fps or 240ps, more dynamic range, fantastic IBIS, better low-light performance, maybe improved AF...just an updated and advanced, small 2021 package for $2K.

I think the bottom line is that they have to sell something. And if Canon and Sony will keep them alive and want them in the business then going back to their roots with a very good, high-end MFT model makes a lot of sense because video people who will buy it.

GH-4 and, to some extent GH-5, were way ahead of the market in terms of specs and, some might say, performance. Both were fantastic value deals. Can Panasonic repeat that feat? Not if they price it at $2,500 because, even with some sort of Raw implementation, many would gravitate toward A7IV (if with 10-bit) or R6. And, if one stayed with MFT, Pocket4K would do the trick for much less.

And then there is a bunch of APS-C cameras, which may face its own demise if Canon puts out an $800 full frame model with DPAF.

The cartel thinks these moves months, if not years, ahead but not everyone gets the place at the adult table and, if Canon decided to stray in order to protect its leading market share, the lesser members will begin to fade away. The totals are still way down from 2019 and the smartphones are better now than they were then too.

PS. I brought up the oil cartel/OPEC+, where there's urging of some Middle Eastern members to pump a lot more black gold in order to drive their higher cost competitors out before the whole oil industry becomes a shell of itself (a little pun) due to the emergence of the battery powered vehicles. Likewise, the photo-video industry has been largely superseded by smartphones. At some point, its members might decide to actually compete against Samsung and Huawei instead of just turning over their lunch money. And that will likely leave it with only two names.

PS. Both Canon and Sony (with its allies) are very busy putting out new glass. And, in terms of stills, one can also pixel-shift to a higher resolution. Then there are various editing suits that quadruple the pixel count in post.

 

[NorBro]

GH-4 and, to some extent GH-5, were way ahead of the market in terms of specs and, some might say, performance. Both were fantastic value deals. Can Panasonic repeat that feat? Not if they price it at $2,500 because, even with some sort of Raw implementation, many would gravitate toward A7IV (if with 10-bit) or R6. And, if one stayed with MFT, Pocket4K would do the trick for much less.

And then there is a bunch of APS-C cameras, which may face its own demise if Canon puts out an $800 full frame model with DPAF.

The cartel thinks these moves months, if not years, ahead but not everyone gets the place at the adult table and, if Canon decided to stray in order to protect its leading market share, the lesser members will begin to fade away. The totals are still way down from 2019 and the smartphones are better now than they were then too.

I don't know...you keep saying the same thing for the last 5 years but everyone keeps making different cameras.

But I also think you're missing the point...

Yes, there are larger-sensor threats in the space like the R6 and the X-T4 for similar money, but these cameras aren't 8K and they also have their own problems.

The point of a GH6 is to be a MFT video version of a R3 and a A1 (or better) for $2000.

That doesn't exist and that would sell.

Otherwise, yeah...another boring 4K MFT camera won't make it past customs.

 

[DLD]

... I don't know...you keep saying the same thing for the last 5 years but everyone keeps making different cameras....

They keep making them but the sales figures is what matters too and those are diving faster than Ju-87 over Crete.

In any case, the chess board gets reset each time a seminal camera comes out. GH-4 was one. A7S/II was one. R5 is one. If there's a standard bearer, others must respond like-for-like. An 8K, 42 MPX GH-6 would move a ton of units at $2,500. A 6K Raw GH-6 with a questionable auto focus would not. There's always a sweet spot and then there's everything in between. That's why R5 keeps topping the sales charts at B&H. It managed to find the perfect value with its price, features and performance, something normally reserved for the middle of the market. The GH-series was normally right there but the best-bang-for-the-buck prize keeps on shifting. Maybe GH-6 manages to hit it again but I wouldn't bet my house on it.

 

[NorBro]

The way I see it is like this...(and I don't know the numbers so I'm assuming):

Panasonic doesn't appear to move cameras like Sony and Canon.

The S5 is down to $1700 and they still can't seem to sell them.

I don't think Panasonic should be focusing on full-frame. In my mind, it's like what's the point?

Who is going to buy a Panasonic full-frame camera with no AF with the R5 and a7SIII around. No one. Barely anyone. They could keep trying, but would it hurt to release another GH camera? I don't think so, and I actually think it could outsell their full-frame ones.

Remember, we're only talking about Panasonic here. It would be silly for Canon and Sony to offer a MFT camera right now. But for Panasonic, it might actually really help them.

 

[Thomas Smet]

A GH6 could be the same price with the same general capabilities for $2,400 vs a FF camera for $2,400 and there is still la market for both.

I don't agree wit this notion that the GH4 and GH5 only did well because they were the first to have 10bit or 4k video. The GH1, GH2 and GH3 were also way ahead of their time.

It was never just about 4k or 10bit. At the time a lot of people laughed at 4k and thought it was silly to bother with it. Same with 10bit external. Most didn't see the point and gladly loved using their 8bit HD cameras.

Panasonic got something right from the start that had nothing to do with getting there before everyone else. Stability, ergonomics and user experience. The Panasonic cameras are virtually flawless in their operation to use for serious work. They may not be low light beasts or have DOF thinner than a sheet of paper but they are easy to use and a joy to use. They rarely get in the way and they actually listen to customers unlike Canon that just randomly stumbles around throwing darts at a moving target hoping to hit something.

m43 has an established lens market and the ability to adapt a lot of lenses. I think the S series cameras are amazing but their lens situation just sucks. Like really sucks. It's unrealistically too expensive for most people. I think Panasonic did a bang up job building a FF camera and lenses that are beyond stunning but they just cost too much for most sane people. I thought cameras were supposed to get more affordable and instead are becoming more expensive. Thats not really the direction camera companies should be going to fight in an ever shrinking market. I would have bought into the S series in a heartbeat if they had more affordable lens options. Its tough for a Panasonic user that invests in a lot of m43 glass to suddenly not be able to use that glass on another Panasonic camera.

I feel the same way about all the new mirrorless mounts. At least Canon and Nikon managed 100% compatibility with their mirrored lenses. Panasonic kind of screwed themselves with the lens mount. It forces users to consider another mirrorless option since they have to start over anyway.

What advantage does going FF have to most people? What if they don't really want that kind of DOF? What if they want a longer reach with lenses? FF is not superior its different. Thats hwy its not a problem for a m43 camera to cost as much as a FF camera. Same with APSC. This notion that sensor size should dictate cost is just stupid. We pay for the overall value a camera provides and not just the sensor size. For me a $1000 Canon M6 smokes the $1000 Canon RP in almost every possible way. In fact I would gladly pay more for the M6 over the hobbled RP. I would also gladly pay $2,400 for a GH6 over a Canon RP any day. Sensor size be damned. There is more to a camera than just the sensor size.

I bought a M6 as a temporary solution until the GH6 comes out. I wanted higher stills and DPAF. As nice as the video looks its starting to bother me how much softer it is. My P4k crushes the crap out of it even though the M6 is a larger sensor.

I was this close to buying a Panasonic G9 but felt 32 MP on the M6 and having DPAF provided more value for the same cost. I was one that crapped all over DPAF but holy crap now that I have it I'm sold. It really is a game changer. Not perfect and anybody serious about video should still manual focus. When my 3 year old runs around however its amazing to have. I prefer to spend more time enjoying her moments vs turning everyday into a full production.

I was also very close to a Fuji which I would buy long before a FF camera. Fuji did almost everything right but adapting EF lenses seemed a bit hit or miss so I avoided it. Again I don't really want to invest in a whole new lens system. If I was starting new sure it would be a great camera.


It all comes down to glass. A crap load of us have m43 glass so we want a new m43 camera. A crap load of us have EF lenses and a Metabones for m43. No need to invest all over again which pretty much every other mirrorless system forces us to do.

Would it have seriously killed Panasonic to make their own EF to L mount adapter that fully supports continuous autofocus? I bet you a ton of people would buy the S series cameras if that were the case.

 

[NorBro]

There would be no point in adapting and using EF lenses with continuous auto-focus because AF doesn't even work well with native lenses, including a $2000+ L-mount lenses. (I used the Sigma MC-21 and push-AF is great.)

Back in 2013, you'd get scolded on the forums if the words 'auto' and 'focus' were even in the same sentence, but the new generation doesn't know what manual focus is. So if a new Panasonic MFT camera doesn't have AF, it needs 8K and the new GH5 II's IBIS and so much more.

 

[Tom Roper]

I agree with much of what Thomas said and Norbro. I'd be very interested in a GH6 with DPAF, and I do think Panasonic torpedoed M43 with the S1H and follow on. It's about the lens. Anyone can offer an affordable camera but I don't want to buy into another FF lens ecosystem. Same for Sony and Canon RF. I have EF and don't want to duplicate focal lengths inasmuch as I have duplication already between EF and M43 (and PL). It doesn't matter how cheap Sony could make the A7 series. I'm not buying the lenses for it. Would feel different certainly if I had.

I agree with Thomas about Panasonic screwing themselves with the L mount. I disagree however that the Panasonic are virtually flawless in their operation for serious work. In fact, the Lumix M43 including PanaLeica suck for the horrid manual focus experience, where you spin the focus ring to get nothing until it overshoots, no way to fine tune, no linear manual focus. I hate it, repeat, Hate it. It's a different story with Olympus lenses that have the manual focus clutch, they are how lenses should be built.

 

[DLD]

I agree with much of what Thomas said and Norbro.,,,

Thanks, Tom.

In any case, the mount importance is probably one sided in the sense that, a non-Sony/Canon model would really have to up its spec game (i.e., value) to be even considered by a Canon/Sony owner but Canon/Sony would only have to be in close proximity to it. And some, like A1, aren't even in that proximity. Depending on the final specs of A7IV, most shooters would pick a reasonable quality 4K with a decent codec and Log over a smaller sensor with higher specs/Raw and a dubious AF. And that's all Sony needs to protect its turf.

Sony's previous champ series - A6300, A6500, A 6600 - which fit neatly below its full frame line in the past also faces a make-or-break corporate decision, as Sony (and Canon/Nikon also) tend to release high end models only, allowing older pieces to slide down in price and pick up the entry level niche. The problem with that strategy is that it's heavily generational. A7RII is a great buy for the stills shooters at $1,200 but Sony doesn't have an older 10-bit FF model to slide into the $1,000-$1,500 slot. And, so it'll need an A6700 with 10-bit video (and a 26-28 MPX in stills) in that range or it has to toss the entire A6XXX line because Canon is expected to beat it on specs in full frame.

Two factors at play here are the technological advance and the declining sales numbers. Within a couple of years, there should be a full frame 8K, 42 MPX unit for $1,500. And no need for anything beyond it.

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

In fact, the Lumix M43 including PanaLeica suck for the horrid manual focus experience, where you spin the focus ring to get nothing until it overshoots, no way to fine tune, no linear manual focus. I hate it, repeat, Hate it. It's a different story with Olympus lenses that have the manual focus clutch, they are how lenses should be built.

It’s a mystery why manufacturers ever thought variable focus speed was a good idea. Makes manual focus a nightmare. Thankfully the Olympus lenses work better. Panasonic is making promising moves with some of its newer lenses and new cameras, but it remains to be seen how many camera-lens combos will be given linear manual focus firmware.

 

[Tom Roper]

I don't think any of the Olympus Pro series lenses have OIS? If I put my GH5S on a gimbal with an OIS lens like the 12-60 PanaLeica, I get really good smoothness and motion, and somewhat acceptable AF. If I try the same thing with my GH5 and IBIS, it can have warping fits. If I turn off the IBIS and turn off OIS, the gimbal isn't good enough to eliminate micro-jitters by itself. The GH5 doesn't AF as well as the GH5S. That leaves me with one semi-decent combination, the GH5S on the gimbal with 12-60 and OIS enabled.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I agree with much of what Thomas said and Norbro. I'd be very interested in a GH6 with DPAF, and I do think Panasonic torpedoed M43 with the S1H and follow on. It's about the lens. Anyone can offer an affordable camera but I don't want to buy into another FF lens ecosystem. Same for Sony and Canon RF. I have EF and don't want to duplicate focal lengths inasmuch as I have duplication already between EF and M43 (and PL). It doesn't matter how cheap Sony could make the A7 series. I'm not buying the lenses for it. Would feel different certainly if I had.

I agree with Thomas about Panasonic screwing themselves with the L mount. I disagree however that the Panasonic are virtually flawless in their operation for serious work. In fact, the Lumix M43 including PanaLeica suck for the horrid manual focus experience, where you spin the focus ring to get nothing until it overshoots, no way to fine tune, no linear manual focus. I hate it, repeat, Hate it. It's a different story with Olympus lenses that have the manual focus clutch, they are how lenses should be built.

Ok I will agree focus by wire isn't the best either. I have managed to get used to it. I'm also finding a lot of other mirrorless lens systems using similar focus by wire designs so that's not limited to just Panasonic.

I was kind of surprised that the EF Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 lens has a focus ring that just keeps spinning as well. It isn't nearly as bad as Panasonic but its missing the hard stops I'm used to. I also bought a Sigma 30mm f1.4 in EF-M mount and it uses the same kind of focus as my Panasonic lenses. I fear a lot of newer lenses are abandoning good manual focus operation. Minus cine lenses of course.

Overall focus is the weak point of Panasonic. Some may consider sensitivity the weakness but it kind of depends on each user really. I don't really consider cranking ISO as an alternative to lighting. Yes its convenient that some cameras can do better in low light but that doesn't necessarily mean its the better choice. I would much prefer a m43 production with lighting vs a FF production with no lighting. Especially when those FF productions crank open those lenses with a razor thin DOF. When it comes to DOF m43 and a focal reducer has matched a century of cinema DOF and FOV. Even without it we are only a stop away from s35mm and there is a ton of lenses that overlap the FOV and DOF capabilities between m43 and s35mm.

Low light isn't a flaw of m43, its a feature. f2.0 is f2.0 on either sensor. Sensor size only impacts how much the ISO can be raised and still have little noise. DOF and FOV isn't a flaw of m43, its a feature. AF and manual focus of the native lenses is really its only true flaw. From a film making perspective cine lenses with true manual focus do help a ton. Adapting true hard stop manual focus lenses help a ton as well for manual focus. At least its an option. If Panasonic could nail AF and MF I think the GH6 would be just as desirable as any current FF camera out there.

 

[ahalpert]

I've soured on focal reducers because they increase my susceptibility to flare. And generally, I'd prefer fewer add-ons in my optical path. I give the advantage here to high-resolution larger sensors that can crop in for S35 or M43 sensor size. Both that and focal reducers have disadvantages, but you can crop your sensor on the fly.

Seems a little silly to me to argue that lit productions only need to use ISO 200 when dedicated cinema cameras are more and more often being released with high ratings or a dual native ISO. And one of the advantages therein is that you might be able to stop down more if you want to so you can have razor thin DOF or something deeper at your discretion.

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

I don't think any of the Olympus Pro series lenses have OIS?

There is the 12–100 mm f/4, but it’s a heavy lens compared to the Panasonic 12–60 mm f/2.8–4. And I presume it wouldn’t have as good tracking autofocus with a Panasonic camera, since the camera won’t know the structure of the out-of-focus image as needed for DFD to function.

The Panasonic 12–60 mm f/2.8–4 is one of the lenses that got a firmware update for linear focus-ring response anyway, but I’m not sure which cameras that works with. Maybe only the GH5 II and GH6? Would be a shame if the GH5S wasn’t updated to support that feature.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I've soured on focal reducers because they increase my susceptibility to flare. And generally, I'd prefer fewer add-ons in my optical path. I give the advantage here to high-resolution larger sensors that can crop in for S35 or M43 sensor size. Both that and focal reducers have disadvantages, but you can crop your sensor on the fly.

Seems a little silly to me to argue that lit productions only need to use ISO 200 when dedicated cinema cameras are more and more often being released with high ratings or a dual native ISO. And one of the advantages therein is that you might be able to stop down more if you want to so you can have razor thin DOF or something deeper at your discretion.

That may be true for video when UHD and 4k video tend to have a much lower pixel count than most DSLR sensors pack. For stills however it sucks taking a hit for a 10 MP still vs a larger 20 MP still. Take the GH5 20 MP with a focal reducer for a APS-C size 20 MP still. Thats vs a FF camera that crops its 24 MP sensor to 10 MP for the same APS-C crop. Thats a significant hit in photo resolution. While focal reducers may add another optical layer they tend to be really good (Metabones at least) and do not impact the image as much as a crop down to 10 MP does,

Thats with a APS-C crop. A m43 crop is even more significant. Getting a m43 FOV on the GH5 provides a 5184 wide photo. Doing so on a Canon R with the same FOV is a 3360 wide photo. Thats with a FF 30MP sensor. Some FF cameras are still 24 - 28 MP. The Canon R6 is only 20 MP. That poor sucker doing a 2x crop to match what the GH5 can do is only a 2736 wide photo.

Now I realize you may care about video a lot more photos but thats not true of every hybrid users. We use hybrid for a reason. I also don't really see the point buying a FF camera if the intent is to shoot it cropped all the time.

 

[DLD]

... Back in 2013, you'd get scolded on the forums if the words 'auto' and 'focus' were even in the same sentence, but the new generation doesn't know what manual focus is. So if a new Panasonic MFT camera doesn't have AF, it needs 8K and the new GH5 II's IBIS and so much more.

The major breakthrough on the continuous/video AF was Canon's dual pixel 70D from the late 2013. And even that was with only 19 AF points.

But, when GH-4 was announced in February, 2014, the lowest priced 4K hybrid was Canon 1D C at $12,000. Sony F-700R needed the digital interface and a Sony recorder, which brought its 4K package price to about $20,000.

And 70D had moire up the wazoo.

 

[NorBro]

I bought a 7D Mark II the following year and I was really confused about DPAF being disabled in 60p (1080).

That was probably officially my first taste of corporate shenanigans, but I didn't know it at the time.

They kept doing similar stuff year-after-year and barely anyone noticed (it was just accepted) until you spend time on the forums and it's drilled into your mind.