GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?
- Thread starter filmguy123
- Start date
NorBro
Major Contributor
The GH5 II takes a bit more heat than other cameras because the MFT community is passionate about their format, but the recycling of the camera was nothing new and in fact Panasonic was the last to do it in an unprecedented 2020 recycling year after every single other company did it, including Sony, Canon, Nikon, Blackmagic, Z CAM and Sigma. (Not counting Olympus because they're done.)
All of those companies had practically identical repackaging of cameras with some minor changes (besides the Pocket Pro which added ND filters).
All of those companies had practically identical repackaging of cameras with some minor changes (besides the Pocket Pro which added ND filters).
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I disagree. If its a stunning camera and one doesn't need a lot of sensitivity it could very well be worth the cost. A lot of nature photographers moved to Olympus m43 for the extra reach. They tend to shoot outdoors during the day so the lower sensitivity is not an issue for them. A 24 MP GH6 would be very well received by photographers and easily worth the money.
Take the Canon R6. Also $2,500 and yes its FF and has DPAF but even the GH5 does some things the R6 cannot. If low light is not a concern the GH5 is still la solid alternative and the GH6 will be even better. Lets look at a few things the GH6 will have the R6 does not have.
1. 6k video or 5.7k. R6 is limited to 4k only.
2. Unlimited video. 30 minute limit and good luck shooting more than that is the summer.
3. 4k video that will never overheat.
4, Non log video in 10bit (Canon only allows 10bit for log video).
5. Larger stills resolution than the R6. More pixel width and more pixel height thanks to the 4x3 aspect ratio sensor vs 3:2 of Canon.
6. Anamorphic. Canon currently has no anamorphic options and no 4x3 mode for anamorphic. Due to the 3:2 aspect ratio of Canon sensors 4x3 anamorphic will always be kind of odd.
7. Scopes and exposure tools while recording. Yes Canon shuts many of them off once recording starts. I like the R6 but its lack of exposure assist tools is a bit mind boggling for video.
8. GH6 will likely have better IBIS for walking around. Canon is really good for keeping the image steady when standing still. Panasonic is better when walking. To those who find IBIS as a replacement for a gimbal this alone will likely make the GH6 worth the price.
9. DCI 4k. Come on Canon! The reason why the R6 has a very slight crop for video is to support UHD video from a full sensor DCI scale down. The sensor is scaling down to DCI and then cropping to UHD. Stupid. Just give us DCI already.
10. Slow motion. The GH6 will likely have some sweet slow motion options vs the R6 which has none for 4k except for 4k 60p. The GH6 is confirmed to handle 4k 120p which is very nice for those that love slow motion. Not to mention that 4k 120p is also 10bit. The R6 would explode if it tried to do that.
11. More realistic cropping options. The R6 20MP is a low light beast but its rather limited in its cropping potential. A APS-C crop is already slightly below UHD resolution which means the video is a bit softer. The GH6 with its larger sensor has more room for cropping into photos and more push in for cropped video mode. Plus Panasonic has enough brains and no need to support APS-C lenses so they can crop 1:1 for UHD or DCI video while Canon has to stick to what will be covered in a APS-C lens image circle. Not only will photographers get a bigger reach with the GH6 for nature but they can use some crop without impacting the quality too much.
12. There are a lot of Panasonic and Olympus lens owners out there. I faced the same situation where moving to a new system was going to cost a lot more than just the camera body. The GH6 and R6 will likely be the same price but to m43 users they only pay $2,500 and thats it. Moving to any other system will include thousands of dollars of glass investment. If the choice is between $2,500 for a GH6 or $5,000 to $10,000 for a new system which one is more realistic?
13. Potentially ProRes Raw external support. We don't know yet if it will get it but the S series cameras have it and Panasonic has to know people will complain if it doesn't get it. The R6 could add it as well but as of right now it has not. Canon just released a firmware for the R5 and R6 and still no ProRes raw support. I have contacted both Atomos and Canon about this.
14. Of course the good ole focal reducer. An added cost but it essentially turns the GH6 into a APS-C camera. The extra stop may help the sensitivity but APS-C may still have a small advantage there but for most users thats more than enough. Especially when we can use Sigma f1.8 zoom lenses that become f1.2. Not every user needs to shoot in the absolute dark but even f2.8 zooms are f2.0 which is essentially prime lens territory.
15. Canon budget zooms are getting darker. Almost hitting f8. A EF budget zoom on a GH6 is a f4 or a super zoom f5.6. Thats potentially two stops faster than a RF lens on the R6. Thats a lot of light and while the R6 sensor can be pushed to insane levels for many users that two stops covers a lot of use cases. I'm impressed with the low light of the R6 but I rarely use it like that. For family stuff where I'm not going to setup lights its worth it but for professional work I will only ever push the ISO so high on any camera. ISO should be used as a last result and not a normal exposure tool. For pro work I keep my f stop, shutter and ISO the same and adjust my lights accordingly. So for pro work the GH6 is absolutely is likely a better camera than the R6. I mentioned this before but my move to FF with the R6 is strictly for family stuff. Same for the DPAF.
Thats based on what we know so far and realistically what we can expect because many of those are already superior on the GH5 to the R6.
The GH6 is still on my list for most of the reasons Thomas has said. I want 5.7K 60P as an improvement over the GH5 or GH5S I have now. The competition would be an 8K Pocket Pro !! The GH5S has both ProRes RAW and BRAW capabilities so I am assuming the GH6 may have the same too.
NorBro
Major Contributor
I can't read all that...too many words, man - but I appreciate it.
And as long as you're not making similar arguments you've made previously in this thread that are based on pin-pointing a lack of features (which could be done for any camera), misrepresenting any technology because of being misinformed, and/or developing any counterpoints based on hypotheticals then I'm sure you've said some great things. :thumbsup:
Looking long term : R6, being a year and a half old itself, isn't the Canon model GH-6 will be competing against. The likely competitor will be the replacement for EOS R, which is de facto 5 1/2 years old in its previous 5D MKIV iteration. The question there is the degree to which Canon will decide to undermine A7IV price and spec sheet.
PS. Canon has EOS R for about a grand less than 5D MKIV ... and 5D MKIV still outsells it!
PS. Canon has EOS R for about a grand less than 5D MKIV ... and 5D MKIV still outsells it!
Zim
Veteran
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
The notion of a transition being extra costly is highly exaggerated, per usual.
Yeah, if one has $20,000 worth of MFT glass and would like the same for his or her new E-mount or RF-mount camera then it might be a painful journey, but that's not a realistic case or observation for most people.
Many who are interested in an upgrade to a newer [few thousand] full-frame sensor already own some of the glass and/or are highly aware of many options available on the market.
And, like many of us have done various times in our careers, you can start slow with a simple zoom like a 24-70mm or 24-105mm and maybe one fast prime, and the additional costs aren't as mind-boggling as they are made out to be in the grand scheme of things especially with what the new format and features will bring to one's business and life.
Yeah, if one has $20,000 worth of MFT glass and would like the same for his or her new E-mount or RF-mount camera then it might be a painful journey, but that's not a realistic case or observation for most people.
Many who are interested in an upgrade to a newer [few thousand] full-frame sensor already own some of the glass and/or are highly aware of many options available on the market.
And, like many of us have done various times in our careers, you can start slow with a simple zoom like a 24-70mm or 24-105mm and maybe one fast prime, and the additional costs aren't as mind-boggling as they are made out to be in the grand scheme of things especially with what the new format and features will bring to one's business and life.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I don't entirely agree, NorBro. I'm about $9k into Sony E-mount lenses, transitioning from a kit of mostly EF mount. Part of what sold me on that transition was that I was either going to get an RF or an E mount camera, and it seemed like RF lenses had advantages over EF. So I felt like I might want to buy new lenses either way, although I definitely could have kept some going on RF with an adapter and saved myself money.
If the lenses you already own are fully compatible with a new camera, then I think you definitely take the cost of lens purchases into account when considering switching to a different system.
And if you start out slow with just a lens or two, it's a major setback in terms of what you can shoot, probably fully negating the advantages of the new camera! The lens is at least as important as the camera
If the lenses you already own are fully compatible with a new camera, then I think you definitely take the cost of lens purchases into account when considering switching to a different system.
And if you start out slow with just a lens or two, it's a major setback in terms of what you can shoot, probably fully negating the advantages of the new camera! The lens is at least as important as the camera
NorBro
Major Contributor
When you were deciding on a new system back in June/July 2020 in the summer of the R5/a7SIII, you repeatedly mentioned how you already had EF lenses which you could use on either system.
Then I watched you change your mind and invest in many different E-mount lenses over the next 1.5 years kind of going against what you said (understood, things change, and AF), but I felt like some of your new lens choices were already very similar to other options you had which you could have used but just wanted to fully transition over to the E-mount once you realized the format was here to stay with you.
So I feel like that $9K was more of a personal choice...not really a necessity. [Although the 50mm GM was probably your best decision.]
Also, I'm talking about a "kit lens" like a RF 24-105mm f/4 for an extra $1K which will outclass many other lenses. So unless you have a MFT camera that's really great in low-light and you own some f/1.8 zooms, the f/4 lens would provide you more shallow DOF and low-light from a FF chip, so it's not a major setback at all, not sure why you would think so?
Peter C.
Veteran
I can't comment on what it means for each individual, but the game that has been played for cameras with inter changeable lenses is lenses is where they make the most money. Each manufacture creates an echo system which generally works only on their cameras. This is designed as barrier for users switching to another brand of camera.
Panasonic has hurt themselves because they don't have as capable and varied lens options as a Canon or even a Nikon. Speaking of Nikon they would have long gone out of business if they didn't have their lens family and ability to keep developing new lenses. For Panasonic this isn't simply a question of how good the GH6 will be but whether third parties will continue to develop lenses for M43 and what is the future of M43 sensor size.
You can argue all day that M43 is good enough for you and all it needs is an improvement of light sensitivity and AF. But since Panasonic doesn't create their own sensor they have no control over future advancements. If Sony decides M43 sensors are decreasing in demand they might not see a point in developing them.
Separate from this issue, Panasonic has fallen behind in the AF race. Whether it's due to negligence, laziness, or circumstances outside of their control the fact remains. A lot of AF tech is tied into the lenses. Without the promise of new lenses to fix AF people are going to abandon that eco system. Even if Panasonic could redesign both the camera AF and offer new lenses to take advantage of it, it would require users to buy both the camera and lenses. At that point the cost would be similar to switch to another eco system that has already developed it like Sony and Canon.
These things take decades to play out but once they do there is no recovery. The war as been won by Canon and Sony it's just a matter of time that Panasonic will be relegated to obscurity. They have no one but themselves to blame because they didn't invest the time and money to match Sony and Canon. They came up with half measures and convinced themself that was good enough.
With the advent of smart phones, the higher end is the only profitable place these manufactures can thrive. These customers are made up of professionals who want flexible cameras capable of video and photography that offer the best features and have robust lens eco systems. These type of customers want the best and are willing to pay for it. This is why the market share is moving to either Sony or Canon, and why this doesn't bode well for Panasonic. Like I said this could take years to fully play out, look at how long Nikon and Olympus have limped along for.
Panasonic could keep pushing back the GH6 release or only offer a modest upgrade. People want something definitive but often there is no smoking gun result and is largely left to subjective interpretations.
Panasonic has hurt themselves because they don't have as capable and varied lens options as a Canon or even a Nikon. Speaking of Nikon they would have long gone out of business if they didn't have their lens family and ability to keep developing new lenses. For Panasonic this isn't simply a question of how good the GH6 will be but whether third parties will continue to develop lenses for M43 and what is the future of M43 sensor size.
You can argue all day that M43 is good enough for you and all it needs is an improvement of light sensitivity and AF. But since Panasonic doesn't create their own sensor they have no control over future advancements. If Sony decides M43 sensors are decreasing in demand they might not see a point in developing them.
Separate from this issue, Panasonic has fallen behind in the AF race. Whether it's due to negligence, laziness, or circumstances outside of their control the fact remains. A lot of AF tech is tied into the lenses. Without the promise of new lenses to fix AF people are going to abandon that eco system. Even if Panasonic could redesign both the camera AF and offer new lenses to take advantage of it, it would require users to buy both the camera and lenses. At that point the cost would be similar to switch to another eco system that has already developed it like Sony and Canon.
These things take decades to play out but once they do there is no recovery. The war as been won by Canon and Sony it's just a matter of time that Panasonic will be relegated to obscurity. They have no one but themselves to blame because they didn't invest the time and money to match Sony and Canon. They came up with half measures and convinced themself that was good enough.
With the advent of smart phones, the higher end is the only profitable place these manufactures can thrive. These customers are made up of professionals who want flexible cameras capable of video and photography that offer the best features and have robust lens eco systems. These type of customers want the best and are willing to pay for it. This is why the market share is moving to either Sony or Canon, and why this doesn't bode well for Panasonic. Like I said this could take years to fully play out, look at how long Nikon and Olympus have limped along for.
Panasonic could keep pushing back the GH6 release or only offer a modest upgrade. People want something definitive but often there is no smoking gun result and is largely left to subjective interpretations.
Last edited:
stoneinapond
Veteran
And the last election was stolen. How quickly hindsight morphs into whatever reality one wants to see.
Peter C.
Veteran
What does this have to do with politics? We're simply talking about our view of the future of the GH6 and the marketplace it exists in.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Good memory.. Incidentally, it was your reviews of the R5 that led me to conclude that it would be preferable to buy new RF lenses rather than adapt EF. Adapting would have been fine, but RF preferable, which altered the math
I was going to just get a zoom and a fast prime as you say. Yes, I changed my mind from thinking that AF was something I would use sometimes to something I would use all the time. And I think I need native lenses to get decent AF. I also had a good year financially despite the pandemic, so I invested more. There are probably even a couple other lenses I would have bought (maybe sony gm 35 + a super telephoto zoom) if I had made more money.
But I've actually been way more targeted in buying E mount lenses than I was with EF, having learned from that experience. All my lens purchases are practical and useful. F/1.4 or 1.2 24/35/50/85 + wide/Normal/telephoto zooms + 28-135. I don't love my samyang 35 and hope to replace it with a gm 35 1.2 if they release one. And I don't use the 28-135 much. But I wouldn't take either back.
And yes, I'm investing with the thought that I can hopefully use these for 5+ years
The setback is if you had different types of lenses (macro, ultra wide, super telephoto) in one format and then lose those options in the new format because you only have 1 or 2 lenses
ahalpert
Major Contributor
This is a really good point! Even if Panasonic releases a camera with great AF, their existing lenses might not be able to fully take advantage of it, necessitating new lens purchases (and development) anyway!
I've learned the importance of lens design for AF in the Sony system. Otherwise I'd be buying Sigma primes, such as their gorgeous 35 1.2, and saving money vs sony GM lenses
NorBro
Major Contributor
Maybe not fully, but I think most would be more than capable with AF.
I say that for a few reasons...
(1) They were built for demanding photography purposes.
(2) I've personally used old EF lenses with modern Canon DPAF systems and they worked okay. Yes, loud and clunky, and some slower than others like a 2010 budget lens versus, say, a 2010 'L' lens, but they performed okay depending on the application. (Obviously you want the best-of-the-best for someone running around at f/1.2.)
(3) The lenses work well now when they do work. IMO, it's painfully obvious Panasonic AF is more than ready but it's locked away in the box. Panasonic AF can work so fine at times (video) and then it just bugs out for no reason when nothing in the frame has changed. IMO, that kind of performance just doesn't make sense and I think it's coded and seeded to randomly fail.
There's supposedly a timer for overheating (I say supposedly because I can't confirm that because I don't know that to be true, but I can confirm I reset overheating multiple times in Canon cameras)...so why can't there be a timer for AF?
I say that for a few reasons...
(1) They were built for demanding photography purposes.
(2) I've personally used old EF lenses with modern Canon DPAF systems and they worked okay. Yes, loud and clunky, and some slower than others like a 2010 budget lens versus, say, a 2010 'L' lens, but they performed okay depending on the application. (Obviously you want the best-of-the-best for someone running around at f/1.2.)
(3) The lenses work well now when they do work. IMO, it's painfully obvious Panasonic AF is more than ready but it's locked away in the box. Panasonic AF can work so fine at times (video) and then it just bugs out for no reason when nothing in the frame has changed. IMO, that kind of performance just doesn't make sense and I think it's coded and seeded to randomly fail.
There's supposedly a timer for overheating (I say supposedly because I can't confirm that because I don't know that to be true, but I can confirm I reset overheating multiple times in Canon cameras)...so why can't there be a timer for AF?
Wasn't there a post/discussion on this site a few years back that claimed that Canon printers were programmed to malfunction after five years?
As to software update issues, there was an infamous Fuji XT-3 auto focus change that went from pretty decent to horribly pulsing right when A6600 came out. With Panasonic, it could likely be a combination of the planted software bug and the disabling of the phase-detect auto focus on their Sony made sensors. That last cripple hammer is not exactly the news, as the type and quantity of the AF points is clearly mentioned in all Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, Sigma manuals and available online everywhere.
PS. Surely, someone meant, "not the first election that was stolen and won't be the last".
Merry Christmas, everyone.
As to software update issues, there was an infamous Fuji XT-3 auto focus change that went from pretty decent to horribly pulsing right when A6600 came out. With Panasonic, it could likely be a combination of the planted software bug and the disabling of the phase-detect auto focus on their Sony made sensors. That last cripple hammer is not exactly the news, as the type and quantity of the AF points is clearly mentioned in all Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, Sigma manuals and available online everywhere.
PS. Surely, someone meant, "not the first election that was stolen and won't be the last".
Merry Christmas, everyone.
NorBro
Major Contributor
I was heated about the X-T3 debacle and made sure everyone knew back then in every other AF post.
It was the world's first larger sensor 10-bit 4K/60p camera under $2K and they absolutely ruined it because it had way too much going on.
The irony was that they ruined it through a major AF firmware update that was supposed to improve the AF!!! Diabolical.
Changing the focus was the most natural way because they couldn't remove 10-bit or 60p or add a crop after the fact. [AF issues could be blamed on user error or environment.]
___
As far as Canon printers, I still have one going strong for about 10 years but it was only like $50 and I don't use it much.
It was the world's first larger sensor 10-bit 4K/60p camera under $2K and they absolutely ruined it because it had way too much going on.
The irony was that they ruined it through a major AF firmware update that was supposed to improve the AF!!! Diabolical.
Changing the focus was the most natural way because they couldn't remove 10-bit or 60p or add a crop after the fact. [AF issues could be blamed on user error or environment.]
___
As far as Canon printers, I still have one going strong for about 10 years but it was only like $50 and I don't use it much.