Why does the lens have to be from Panasonic. How many lenses do BlackMagic make? Also the P4K has no IBIS, no autofocus worth talking about etc etc. Firmware cannot provide everything however many updates are given. Totally different product with close or maybe the same sensor that the GH5S has installed. The P4k needs to be on a tripod or some form of image stabilizer just like the GH5S and unlike the GH5S has NO continuous auto focus in any of the firmware updates. BM updates line up with the Resolve updates ? BM is a hardware company just like Panasonic and make money from people buying hardware. Example of BM new hardware look at the new 6K Pro same guts as the old 6K but with new hardware. Is that OK but Panasonic doing much the same thing calling it the GH5II is not OK ? Personally I think we will see yet another hardware version of the 6K Pro with the 12K sensor but with limits to say 8K. Then a year later another version. Companies need to ship hardware or have people pay for software. Money for salaries to keep a company going does not come for free. Would love to know how you make any money as you have a very strange view of business.
GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?
- Thread starter filmguy123
- Start date
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Again you need to be clear what you are looking for. You never said it had to be made by Panasonic. You also never told us what your definition of wide or cheap is. Many of the lenses I listed are not made by Canon even though they are EF lenses. Lets look at Sony FF for example. They have two wide and fast lenses. 14mm f1.8 and 20mm f1.8. Both are not cheap at all compared to your apparent price definition of cheap. So I'm not sure what system you are really comparing to here. Very few systems have a ultra wide and fast lens for cheap.
I listed some 3rd party options but apparently you have an issue with all of them. Starting to wonder if the problem here isn't Panasonic but you. You want it all for nothing no matter how unrealistic that may be.
You asked for wide, fast and cheap. I gave you exactly that but you want to keep moving the goal post to suit your own warped needs.
This is not a conspiracy against you. You want a firmware update for free to add a bunch of stuff. We get that. Panasonic has provided five years of firmware updates for free.
I'm not sure how many more ways we can say this. The GH5mk2 is not for you or most of us. It is not intended to be an upgrade for GH5 users. Its intended to replace the GH5 for those new users that were going to buy a GH5. Its a refreshed offering of the GH5. I'm also not sure you entirely know how firmware works or what kind of limitations it may have. You are not a developer and in particular not on that has designed and built firmware. Comparing one camera to another in terms of what its firmware can do is completely pointless. Thats like saying a Smart car should also be able to go 0-60 in 2 seconds because it has four wheels just like other cars. All software on the planet eventually ends support. Thats how it works. Deal with it.
Let me ask you this. When you buy a 2020 car do you expect that car to get a firmware update to turn it into a 2021 car? Of course not. If you really must have the 2021 car you sell the 2020 car and get the 2021 car. Same with the camera. Stop being difficult about it and sell the GH5 while it has value and buy the GH5mk2 if you really must have what it provides.
Most of us here will not buy the GH5mk2. Its not meant for us. The mk2 is there for new users. I'm not sure if it will sell more or about the same as the GH5 was already selling. All I know is it doesn't really matter because most of it is the same camera. so the R&D and manufacturing cost has little impact on Panasonic. They can offer a slightly refreshed model for little cost on their part and keep an already great camera more modern to appeal to new users.
Most of us here are going to hold off for the GH6. Some users may also hold off for the GH6 but it comes down to if they want to spend $2,500 or $1,700 for a GH camera. $800 is a big deal for those that are perfectly fine with what the GH5 can do and don't really need what the GH6 provides. Panasonic now has three current and very valid GH models to choose from and thats really cool. We finally have a choice vs taking that one single flagship model for what it is. We can choose the budget hybrid GH5, the video centric low light beast GH5S that can also do external raw or the up coming GH6 if we really need higher frame rates and resolution. Choice is great. I for now am very glad they have a GH5mk2 option for those that don't need a GH6 but want something better than the consumer focused m43 cameras.
Harry Pallenberg
Well-known member
Whew... finally Message #623. Now I can finally weigh in... and get it back on track.
I am still interested in a GH6.
Had GH2, then hacked it... that was fun. Then GH4, then GH5... wow, what a camera. Literally a game changer. Sure I've been tempted by others (Sony A7sIII)... but dont need to spend the money PLUS buy all new glass. AND as others have said it is super easy and fairly cheap to get wide enough on GH5. But for me to get LONG, like 800mm, on a FF is crazy $pendy and HUGE. Being able to 1-man-band it at airports in a small backpack is MY main reason for continuing to love M43.
Will I hold till GH6 is out to decide what to do next? Sure. No reason not to as my GH5 still does 4K 60, lasts forever on a battery, no gimbal needed.
I am still interested in a GH6.
Had GH2, then hacked it... that was fun. Then GH4, then GH5... wow, what a camera. Literally a game changer. Sure I've been tempted by others (Sony A7sIII)... but dont need to spend the money PLUS buy all new glass. AND as others have said it is super easy and fairly cheap to get wide enough on GH5. But for me to get LONG, like 800mm, on a FF is crazy $pendy and HUGE. Being able to 1-man-band it at airports in a small backpack is MY main reason for continuing to love M43.
Will I hold till GH6 is out to decide what to do next? Sure. No reason not to as my GH5 still does 4K 60, lasts forever on a battery, no gimbal needed.
Samuel Dilworth
Well-known member
Complaints about GH5 firmware updates are unreasonable. That camera has received more – and more significant – firmware updates over its long life than any other camera I can think of.
I do agree that Micro Four Thirds needs a ~10 mm autofocus prime, whether by Panasonic or Olympus or someone else. That’s the most obvious missing lens in the system, by my reckoning. (I’d also like a shift lens – not necessarily tilt-shift – and an ultra-light, high-quality tele prime, e.g. a 150-gram 100 mm f/3.5.)
The 10 mm might come, because Panasonic promised more lenses after the 25–50 mm f/1.7 zoom in this official video, which also explains the GH5M2 and GH6 double assault:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPc6Gzt5obY
They’re trying to more precisely target the burgeoning video user-base by splitting the GH-series into two (plus the full-frame cameras). It makes more sense than I expected when I first heard the two-camera rumour. Remember, the GH5 is the camera that powers YouTube. Adding a self-contained streaming capability and keeping the price down is a pretty interesting proposition for hundreds of thousands of YouTubers.
Then the GH6 can be unleashed with Raw recording, the new ultra-fast sensor, new features (ND filter at last? Probably not), etc., without worrying about pricing it out of mainstream YouTuber contention.
Meanwhlie, giving the GH5S Raw output at a lower price than the GH6 takes some of the wind out of Blackmagic’s efforts. I just wish it could also do BRAW or that Resolve supported ProRes RAW.
It’s starting to look like a strategy, albeit a bit late.
I do agree that Micro Four Thirds needs a ~10 mm autofocus prime, whether by Panasonic or Olympus or someone else. That’s the most obvious missing lens in the system, by my reckoning. (I’d also like a shift lens – not necessarily tilt-shift – and an ultra-light, high-quality tele prime, e.g. a 150-gram 100 mm f/3.5.)
The 10 mm might come, because Panasonic promised more lenses after the 25–50 mm f/1.7 zoom in this official video, which also explains the GH5M2 and GH6 double assault:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPc6Gzt5obY
They’re trying to more precisely target the burgeoning video user-base by splitting the GH-series into two (plus the full-frame cameras). It makes more sense than I expected when I first heard the two-camera rumour. Remember, the GH5 is the camera that powers YouTube. Adding a self-contained streaming capability and keeping the price down is a pretty interesting proposition for hundreds of thousands of YouTubers.
Then the GH6 can be unleashed with Raw recording, the new ultra-fast sensor, new features (ND filter at last? Probably not), etc., without worrying about pricing it out of mainstream YouTuber contention.
Meanwhlie, giving the GH5S Raw output at a lower price than the GH6 takes some of the wind out of Blackmagic’s efforts. I just wish it could also do BRAW or that Resolve supported ProRes RAW.
It’s starting to look like a strategy, albeit a bit late.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Here is another reason why I don't think FF should just cost more because its bigger. We have all talked about how m43 has a telephoto advantage but look at it this way.
Lets say you need 300mm in FF terms to reach something you are trying to shoot. Almost all 300mm FF options are a f5.6 lens. Nikon has a f2.8 for $9,500 and Sigma has a f.28 option for $3,600. Realistically most are not going to buy those and are stuck with f5.6 on the long end options.
On my P4k I use a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 G2 with a Metabones. Thats roughly 300mm equivalent at f2.0. Thats a 3 stop difference from the back of a church or out in nature. I once did weddings many years ago and the place that was the biggest struggle where lights cannot be used was in a church. Want a challenge you should try shooting at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. Very long and dark.
Basically we are talking the difference between shooting ISO 800 on my P4k vs ISO 6400 on a FF camera. While FF is more sensitive I know for a fact the higher the ISO raises the more noise it has. ISO 6400 on the P4k would likely have more visible noise but because of the extra reach of m43 and the focal reducer we rarely need to go that high for telephoto. Even compared to the mighty A7S3 the P4k is going to look cleaner.
While this may only be an example of 300mm anything above 200mm on FF is going to be darker. M43 can have this 3 stop advantage from 200 up to 300mm. For a 2 stop advantage that range is from 200mm to 400mm. Anything below 200mm on FF and you once again have a lot of overlap until you get down to 24mm and then FF starts to have an advantage again.
This is why some of us say FF is not better. Its just different. It has a wide angle advantage but a telephoto disadvantage. Even if one were to get a Sigma 300mm f2.8 for $3,600 they still have an advantage up to 600mm. Very few slow FF lenses get longer than that. There are just as many pros and cons to each sensor size. So to someone that must have FF 24mm f1.4 yes FF has an advantage. But to someone that needs 300mm f2.0 in a dark venue m43 suddenly provides much more value. Some of us find ourselves in those dark crappy venues a lot more than we find ourselves shooting inside a closet. Others its the opposite. Different needs of equal importance. Meaning the sensor size should not be a determining factor for cost. I also think its completely realistic for a m43 camera to cost more because of this. My P4k plus Metabones plus Tamron G2 cost just under $3k but I now have the ability to shoot 100-300mm f2.0 equivalent. FF and the Sigma 300mm would have cost me at least $6k for the same reach and slightly more noise. $650 of that $3k cost was the Metabones which now that I have I can use it on any lens.
Lets say you need 300mm in FF terms to reach something you are trying to shoot. Almost all 300mm FF options are a f5.6 lens. Nikon has a f2.8 for $9,500 and Sigma has a f.28 option for $3,600. Realistically most are not going to buy those and are stuck with f5.6 on the long end options.
On my P4k I use a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 G2 with a Metabones. Thats roughly 300mm equivalent at f2.0. Thats a 3 stop difference from the back of a church or out in nature. I once did weddings many years ago and the place that was the biggest struggle where lights cannot be used was in a church. Want a challenge you should try shooting at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. Very long and dark.
Basically we are talking the difference between shooting ISO 800 on my P4k vs ISO 6400 on a FF camera. While FF is more sensitive I know for a fact the higher the ISO raises the more noise it has. ISO 6400 on the P4k would likely have more visible noise but because of the extra reach of m43 and the focal reducer we rarely need to go that high for telephoto. Even compared to the mighty A7S3 the P4k is going to look cleaner.
While this may only be an example of 300mm anything above 200mm on FF is going to be darker. M43 can have this 3 stop advantage from 200 up to 300mm. For a 2 stop advantage that range is from 200mm to 400mm. Anything below 200mm on FF and you once again have a lot of overlap until you get down to 24mm and then FF starts to have an advantage again.
This is why some of us say FF is not better. Its just different. It has a wide angle advantage but a telephoto disadvantage. Even if one were to get a Sigma 300mm f2.8 for $3,600 they still have an advantage up to 600mm. Very few slow FF lenses get longer than that. There are just as many pros and cons to each sensor size. So to someone that must have FF 24mm f1.4 yes FF has an advantage. But to someone that needs 300mm f2.0 in a dark venue m43 suddenly provides much more value. Some of us find ourselves in those dark crappy venues a lot more than we find ourselves shooting inside a closet. Others its the opposite. Different needs of equal importance. Meaning the sensor size should not be a determining factor for cost. I also think its completely realistic for a m43 camera to cost more because of this. My P4k plus Metabones plus Tamron G2 cost just under $3k but I now have the ability to shoot 100-300mm f2.0 equivalent. FF and the Sigma 300mm would have cost me at least $6k for the same reach and slightly more noise. $650 of that $3k cost was the Metabones which now that I have I can use it on any lens.
stoneinapond
Veteran
I'm thinking you are stressing the autofocus bit? In my opinion it won't happen. With that field of view, focusing is often just a quick adjustment unless you are working close up and wide open. And in that event I wouldn't trust auto anything. Much quicker to focus manually.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Agreed. Part of the advantage of an ultra wide is the infinity focus. Almost everyone within inches of the lens is in focus. I would love to know what the heck people are shooting that need 7mm f0.95 with stabilization and auto focus for $119.95 (oh sorry is that too expensive). At 7mm even a iPhone screen would cast enough light to light a subject. Just how much do people not want to use even the most basic of lights. You can get a very color accurate light for $30 that could light something that close.
Bassman2003
Veteran
They could have added something about image quality in the 4/3rds area... Those users want mice image quality as well 
stoneinapond
Veteran
They could have added something about image quality in the 4/3rds area... Those users want mice image quality as well
ahalpert
Major Contributor
They could have added something about image quality in the 4/3rds area... Those users want mice image quality as well
how are they going to charge you more for full-frame if it doesn't have Ultimate. Image. Quality.
Bassman2003
Veteran
It could have excellent image quality...
They could have added something about image quality in the 4/3rds area... Those users want mice image quality as well
It'll be the best bridge camera ever.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
That’s marketing.
I will give them that FF tends to have more DR but that isn’t always a given. The P4k has more DR than the 5D FF Canon DSLRs so that is not always true.
Sensitivity is open for debate as well. Sensor size means squat for sensitivity. It’s all about pixel size. The GH5S is likely better in low light than a 32MP FF sensor. Now if one wants higher stills resolution then yes right now a larger sensor is the way to get that. For those that never shoot stills however until we move to true 8k video and it’s realistic to use there is little reason to have more than 4K pixels on a sensor.
Image quality? Outside of signal to noise ratio at higher ISO levels and dynamic range there is nothing about m43 video quality that has ever really suffered. A GH camera should at the very least be able to produce the kind of quality as the P4K which is at the top of the game right now for 4K video. In fact there are a lot of professionals that would say the P4k beats the S5 hands down except for dynamic range. Not that a good 13 stops is horrible. So I’m not sure anybody can make the better image quality claim from a FF sensor. Photo sites are photo sites and an image doesn’t magically look better just because the sensor is larger. If that were the case then cropped modes on FF cameras would suddenly look horrible. Less pixels only means worse quality if it no longer has enough to achieve the desired need. I also don’t consider the ability to add more ISO as higher quality. It may look cleaner and that aspect is better but that’s only true if one does not using lighting.
Plus like I showed in an earlier post the quality of low light kind of depends on the focal length. If one tends to shoot a lot of 200-300mm range on FF then m43 can actually have a big advantage. Any wedding shooter in a church knows how dark it can get and if they have to shoot a camera from the back of the church or the balcony how little 200mm on FF can be. Even 300mm isn’t always enough to get closeups from that far back. M43 has a pretty decent telephoto advantage over FF.
Thing about ultra wide vs telephoto advantages is with ultra wide it tends to be insanely easy and affordable to add light. A set of small color accurate LEDs on cheap stands can be enough for many ultra wide shots. Telephoto however is almost impossible to light for unless you have a large stage production like setup to do so.
This is why even if one finds value in a FF I don’t think that instantly rules out also having a m43 camera for certain shots. We buy a wide range of lenses to cover different situations. The same should be true of bodies. Especially with how affordable bodies are today. That’s why I’m sticking with EF glass while I can still get it. I don’t like any of the new FF mirrorless mounts because they will likely never be adapted to anything else. I feel we are taking a huge step backwards when it comes to lens compatibility and will all soon be locked in to one lens mount.
Everything is marketing. That's how the photo-video industry rolls. Smartphones have 108 MPX sensors from 70mm2. MFT tops out at 20 MPX from 225mm2. That's because the smartphone industry is both competitive and huge and the photo-video is neither. And one is controlled by the demand; the other by supply and demand. C'est la vie.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
It's marketing but it's also true. It's been well-covered in this thread that m43 has a compactness "mobility" advantage and that the FF cameras on offer have a DR and sensitivity advantage. If you wanna call higher DR and sensitivity (plus resolution) "ultimate image quality" then that's up to them. But we all know that the best image quality comes from using the RIGHT tool for the job.
And again, not to nitpick, Thomas, but most of my wide and ultrawide shooting is exactly what can't be lit because it's either a huge vista or I'm circling around on gimbal and moving too much to set lights/they'd be in the shot/I don't want a hard sourcey light from camera because it wouldn't look good. And just in general, I think documentary really benefits from sensitive cameras. Some of my wedding clients even prohibit the use of video lights because of the detrimental impact on fly-on-the-wall shooting. Then dial your shutter down to 1/120 or 1/250 for slow mo on a dark dance floor and you do the math. I usually only light stuff that will sit still for me and then I usually don't need a wide, just coincidentally.
Also, all of the churches I shoot in let me set cameras to the sides of the dais and in the aisle. If I put one in the balcony, it's usually a wide, but I find better coverage can be had from ground level. I can boost my gimbal 8' up on a light stand if I need to go eye level level with someone at a podium, and the reality is that I rarely need more than 200mm FF, and if I do then I can crop in on the image in-camera and get a S35 equivalent or even M43 (with clear image zoom).
I see the advantages of M43 as being cost, size, readout speed, flexibility of format (with speed boosters), and enabling faster super telephotos by cropping in on FF glass.
And DLD - nobody here wants to shoot with those tiny pixels. I was so glad when the A7SIII didn't go higher resolution. They MIGHT make a difference shooting stills or they might negatively impact IQ and foster a lazy shoot from the hip mentality.
And again, not to nitpick, Thomas, but most of my wide and ultrawide shooting is exactly what can't be lit because it's either a huge vista or I'm circling around on gimbal and moving too much to set lights/they'd be in the shot/I don't want a hard sourcey light from camera because it wouldn't look good. And just in general, I think documentary really benefits from sensitive cameras. Some of my wedding clients even prohibit the use of video lights because of the detrimental impact on fly-on-the-wall shooting. Then dial your shutter down to 1/120 or 1/250 for slow mo on a dark dance floor and you do the math. I usually only light stuff that will sit still for me and then I usually don't need a wide, just coincidentally.
Also, all of the churches I shoot in let me set cameras to the sides of the dais and in the aisle. If I put one in the balcony, it's usually a wide, but I find better coverage can be had from ground level. I can boost my gimbal 8' up on a light stand if I need to go eye level level with someone at a podium, and the reality is that I rarely need more than 200mm FF, and if I do then I can crop in on the image in-camera and get a S35 equivalent or even M43 (with clear image zoom).
I see the advantages of M43 as being cost, size, readout speed, flexibility of format (with speed boosters), and enabling faster super telephotos by cropping in on FF glass.
And DLD - nobody here wants to shoot with those tiny pixels. I was so glad when the A7SIII didn't go higher resolution. They MIGHT make a difference shooting stills or they might negatively impact IQ and foster a lazy shoot from the hip mentality.
Last edited:
Except the R5 and A1 owners.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
the A1 gets 50MP out of 864mm^2. You referenced smartphones getting 108MP out of 70mm^2. Double the pixels in less than 10% of the area. And nobody I know of HERE in THIS THREAD owns an A1 or even probably an R5. Certainly not for video. We LIKE the GH5s and A7SIII approach to sensor resolution.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself!
Having looked at the GH5II in more detail there is one thing I like that would be useful to me. Internal and simultaneous external recording at 10 bit 4:2:2 UHD. I would use that. Most of the other features I do not think are an improvement for me over the GH5 or GH5S I have now. That is something I would look for on the GH6 maybe internal recording and external RAW. Or the opposite of course.