GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

Thomas Smet said:
AF is super nice on the R6. Without a doubt it works very well and is nice to have. Key word nice to have.

I just don't buy that everyone needs or even wants that.

I will just leave this here. Its always good to put into perspective what is important. Yeah he had a crew in the past but since he has done a lot of stuff on his own. Most of this stuff is a nice to have and not a must have. 4k, 6k, 8k, IBIS, AF, auto exposure, high DR, whatever. My favorite line of his is there are nerds and there are artists. I myself fall a lot of times into the nard category and I'm trying hard to dial that back. I miss just having fun creating video and being innovative at ways to get it done.

Click to expand...

He is right. A good story is more important than anything. Let's not forget good audio too. You can have a RED and still make a piece of crap film.
 
There are many more successful beautifully filmed bad stories than terribly filmed good stories.

A lot of "good stories" from amazing artists no one has heard of don't go anywhere. Maybe that means they aren't good enough? IDK.

So if telling a good story is mostly about feeling good and not making any money then that's cool, but I think you need a little bit of everything.

Because at some point too much life has passed and people don't have the patience to entertain a poor video production unless you're really doing something different and engaging everyone from the first frame (one-in-a-million gimmicks like The BW Project).

I know you like to use iPhone examples as counterpoints, even though it's mostly the same 3-4 movies because that's literally how long the list, but even films like Unsane had some higher production values plus money and connections to promote it.
 
I can agree with his point that we tend to put too much emphasis on the tools we use but he goes a little too to far arguing against modern technological advances . There’s nothing wrong with new technologies and methods like using log raw. Just as high end tools don’t make a bad filmmaker better they don’t make a great filmmaker worse. Said another way tools are net neutral to the filmmaker abilities to tell a story. It’s inevitable people use tools as crutch or misuse tech. The appeal of focusing on tools is it’s more straightforward to buy a newer camera than to improve your creativity. You can’t place an order on B&H for more creativity. He also makes a good point to get as much as you can right while filming and not relying on tech to bail you out in post. Whether that be raw or 32bit float.
 
Last edited:
Hey I’m a nerd too.

I’m just pointing out there are different options. There is a tendency to assume great AF is the only option or that a camera that does overheat is the only option.

we all get the stuff that matters to us for whatever reason. The point of the above video to me at least is not to say screw all that stuff but to keep in mind talent can get it done.

if one creates magic on m43 using manual focus that’s totally fine. They are not doing something wrong. If one creates magic on the R6 even though it overheats that’s fine as well.

it’s just important to keep in mind what really matters here. Viewers don’t care about highlight detail as much as we think they do. Yes we want video DR to get closer to film but is even a must really? The GH6 has way better DR than the first RED ONE camera. Of course we always want better but better for what? It’s the same argument with 8k. It’s more but so what?

we can care about stuff like that but not at the expense of what really matters. I still think the first Avengers movie or Guardians of the Galaxy looks stunning even though it was mastered in 2k.

I like 4K and I like 4:4:4. I know I don’t need them but I like them. I studied VFX in college using my Canon XL1 pulling good keys on DV 4:1:1. It sucked but we managed. My love of cameras will always be deeply rooted in VFX. So I know I can be more on the nerd side at times. I also know not everyone needs that.

There are a wide range of needs and talents out there. My only point is that m43 is not inferior to everyone just because of the AF. Every camera has pros and cons and we need to stop acting as if only the AF matters.

yes it sucks. I want the GH6 to have phase detect AF as well. It does not so I will keep my R6 along with the GH6 if I get one. My backup camera for the R6 was going to be a RP which doesn’t have DPAF in 4K anyway so really the GH6 is a massively better camera than the RP. Hundreds to thousands of people out there are creating art with cine, adapted vintage and anamorphic lenses. It’s totally possible. Interviews, weddings, run&gun. You name it. It may take more effort or maybe it doesn’t. Different people view focus differently and that’s ok.
 
Peter C. said:
I can agree with his point that we tend to put too much emphasis on the tools we use. There’s nothing wrong with new technologies and methods like using log raw. Just as high end tools don’t make a bad filmmaker better they don’t make a great filmmaker worse. Said another way tools are net neutral to the filmmaker abilities to tell a story. It’s inevitable people use tools as crutch or misuse tech. The appeal of focusing on tools is it’s more straightforward to buy a newer camera than to improve your creativity and abilities. You can’t place an order on B&H for more creativity, better judgment and high end work.
Click to expand...

Tools help a lot and that’s fine. I use better tools as well. It’s when they are used as a crutch it becomes a problem. Take phase detect AF for example. It’s so good now that people using cameras may no longer develop the skills to manual focus at all. I see photographers today that try out a full manual lens and they just can’t do it. I feel like part of the outrage of Panasonic not having phase detect is because so many just can’t do manual anymore. I see that as a problem. it’s ok to make use of AF but not at the expense of mastering manual focus. Master focus and then use the tools to help. Master lighting, diffusion, flagging and so forth and then worry about letting DR take care of that for you. Eventually people will not be able to shoot anything if a camera doesn’t have 15 stops of DR. They just won’t know how to handle it. I think that’s sad as well.

Using a lot of those exposure methods is not just to combat a DR limitation. They were used on film as well. They were used to create a more pleasing balanced image. If we always have high DR people will start and they have started to not put in that effort anymore. I find that sad. Use the DR when there is no other choice but don’t forget the tools used for a century to make better images.

I know the video of my daughter in my living room would be better if I set up two or three of my soft box lights and grabbed my gimbal. But I’m not going to. I don’t want her to die of boredom waiting for me to do that. I know I need to get that in the moment. So yes it’s nice to have tools to make that possible.

thing is I feel m43 already gives us those tools and we are splitting hairs with the m43 vs FF argument. Both systems are very capable of doing the things we have wanted to do for decades. Ever since I did VFX projects with a Canon XL1 and was stuck with a pixel shifted 720x480 interlaced DV at 4:1:1. Maybe that’s why I appreciate what m43 can do because I do see how far we have come and moving to FF only moves that goal post a tiny bit.

At the end of the day every system and camera has pros and cons. Every single one. We have researched and debated this to death and there is no perfect camera. Period. We use the tools with the trade offs that impact us the least. The trade offs we accept do sometimes have work arounds. Sometimes they do not. Nothing could help Canon pixel binned HD look decent. Nothing could help Sony forcing Slog 2 and 3 in 8bit.

DR has tools to solve. Focus has tools and raw talent and practice to solve. So if Panasonic had to make a trade off choice some will consider that the right choice. Many using the GH6 will use it as a cinema camera using vintage, cine or anamorphic lenses. AF is not a concern at all for all of those users. The GH6 is the first DSLR I think can truly be called a cine camera next to the S1H and Canon R5C. Cine cameras tend to not have AF at all so there is a large market there that will love the GH6. It’s already better than the Pocket 6k Pro minus the BRAW support. It’s getting ProRes raw support however so it will directly compete with the P6k Pro. It adds IBIS that even works with anamorphic lenses and thanks to the 4x3 sensor offers much more anamorphic resolution than the P6k can. It has some form of AF while the P6k does not at all. It even offers a much wider FOV when used with a Speedbooster vs the P6k which is not nearly as wide as s35mm usually is. The GH6 is a direct competitor to the P6k Pro and in many ways superior. Way better options for film making than the R6 which is really more of a set it and forget it kind of camera.
 
What matters and what should be on a camera?

Simple lo budget people want nd Xlr af wide dr.

Others use a $2k a day soundi a $1k a day 1st a:c and à gaffer with a truck to fill the shadows so the scene has 8 stops of dr.. then go on social and explain that they are fine on a simple retro Dslr or film camera
 
NorBro said:
There are many more successful beautifully filmed bad stories than terribly filmed good stories.

A lot of "good stories" from amazing artists no one has heard of don't go anywhere. Maybe that means they aren't good enough? IDK.

So if telling a good story is mostly about feeling good and not making any money then that's cool, but I think you need a little bit of everything.

Because at some point too much life has passed and people don't have the patience to entertain a poor video production unless you're really doing something different and engaging everyone from the first frame (one-in-a-million gimmicks like The BW Project).

I know you like to use iPhone examples as counterpoints, even though it's mostly the same 3-4 movies because that's literally how long the list, but even films like Unsane had some higher production values plus money and connections to promote it.
Click to expand...

You are right. Many good stories go nowhere too. Many movies with big budgets go nowhere. I guess not many people start a film saying "this story sucks", but we have a MTF, or a RED or a FF camera so you cares about the story. I guess you use what you have or can afford and do the best you can.
 
Last edited:
Not changing to phase detect says more about Panasonic ignoring the biggest criticism of their cameras. Sony and Canon could have just as easily rested on their laurels stayed with contrast AF and say that’s good enough you should use manual focus. Instead they said, no we can do better.
 
Most people made the argument our cheaper tools were no longer the limiting point several years ago. Fast forward to now, and this is being said about a $2200 m43 camera vs a top tier full frame flagship. From DPReview:

https://m.dpreview.com/opinion/3509...-i-wanted-what-i-got-and-what-i-didn-t-expect

Aside from very low light shooting, capturing the most high contrast scenes and when I need the absolute shallowest depth of field, the GH6 outperforms my current favorite video camera, the S1H.…

…This camera will make me leave the S1H at home for the majority of DPReview TV shoots, and that means Micro Four Thirds is alive and well.
Click to expand...
 
It outperforms it in many ways because it's newer. That's usually the case with all companies. The R5 outperformed cameras 3x its price when it was released.

But I think a lot of us say that about many new camera releases (especially sources providing information to a larger audience, though I do believe him, just saying).

It's why we purchase new cameras, you know? Because they may do certain things that our other cameras don't, or do them better so we switch and allocate different priorities to our tools.

Many who work in this industry work for themselves and are hired by people who don't have very detailed requests or demands. I think DPReview could use pretty much any camera from the last 5 years and wouldn't lose a single viewer, so they have that luxury to use what they enjoy the most.

But others will not be able to move forward without specific specifications.
 
NorBro said:
Many who work in this industry work for themselves and are hired by people who don't have very detailed requests or demands... But others will not be able to move forward without specific specifications.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm definitely in the former. Competition is fierce, so the one request is that it looks competitive with what else it out there, but that's not specs based - its results based. And for that, I think the GH6 will match IQ to my S1H in 90% of scenarios and be easier and more fun to work with. Which, oddly, can net better results.
 
I'd question why Chris and Jordan are stuck to a two and a half year old camera from an "affordable" range. I suppose it's because they work for a Digital Photography Review, not a Red Review or an ARRI Review. And because their bosses can afford a higher end gear but choose not to due to the "other considerations". At least, the Potato Jet salivates over Alexa LF, not a $4,000 consumer tier camera.

PS. I know the two of them tried various film recreations where they had set up their lighting and so on and those looked pretty good but their usual Alberta based outdoor clips are usually rather meh. One can accept shooting stills outdoors but their summaries, for the most part, can be shot on DVX 200 baked in and not make an iota of difference.
 
Last edited:
Peter C. said:
Not changing to phase detect says more about Panasonic ignoring the biggest criticism of their cameras. Sony and Canon could have just as easily rested on their laurels stayed with contrast AF and say that’s good enough you should use manual focus. Instead they said, no we can do better.
Click to expand...

But they do keep improving the AF. They are not just sitting back and saying screw it. We don't know the absolute reason why they don't do it. I just watched a video I can't find now where a guy from Panasonic stated it was already too late because they planned out the sensor for the GH6 when the GH4 came out. They keep looking into phase detect or better alternatives but once you develop a certain system of hardware and capabilities you don't just suddenly shift gears. Canon did that for many years by refusing to adopt 4k video. Canon still limits features of their cameras and nobody uses the cripple hammer more than Canon does. Sony refused to use 10bit for a long time and their fan base insisted 10bit was silly and pointless. Until they got it and then all of a sudden it was so important.

Don't just assume Panasonic loves to torture people by not adding phase detect. Panasonic is not ignoring AF. Thats why they keep trying to make it better. Thats why they put in a ton of work to add AI to help make it better. They are not just sitting there doing nothing.

I watched another video that stated Panasonic lenses will need their firmware updated to take full advantage of the new AF. Are the reviews out there doing that? I don't know. Some reviews are very impressed with the AF. Others find flaws. Perhaps we should wait for the final version of the camera firmware and lenses updated to make the most of it to really judge it.

We need to also be careful to not just assume it sucks because its not phase detect. DFD doesn't have to suck and a lot of times it can do very well. The video that mentioned updating lens firmware shot on the hood of a car using AF through the windshield and it was rock solid with no pulsing. Not sure why that wouldn't be manual focus but it was a test to se if it would work and it did.
 
Meh, I don't disagree their footage isn't anything special. But their footage also doesn't represent the best of what can be done with a GH6 by a long shot. 7:15 torture test shot quickly from someone competent's first go at the camera, in slow motion lowlight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUd_I8Z3Iqw

For me, once I got a lot of the bigger gear I was salivating on, it was often just too much for me to handle as a solo op in the way I like to work. This $2200 camera is more valuable to me than the $7500 I paid for the EVA1. Make the Alexa LF $2200 and I'd still pick the GH6 if I could only have one. Make the GH6 and Alexa both $25,000 and I'd pick the GH6. Yeah I said it. Because for me image quality is only one metric. The Alexa LF is awesome but it would not allow me to shoot in the way I am able to shoot with a GH6, so I would not get as good of content in the end, or I would have to change my business structure to work in teams rather than as a solo op, or I would have to make a shoot take way longer and thus charge way more and thus price myself out.

I like working alone. I like being uninhibited by gear. I like taking 100% of the profit and getting paid to travel to awesome places across the globe and have fun adventures and access to otherwise impossibly natural footage via keeping it discreet. For me, if the body weighs more than about 2lbs and doesn't have IBIS, it's out. If I have to add an external screen, battery, recorder, it's out. I work alone (other than local help for logistics and assistance), I work in remote places, I work on shoots that require capturing a ton of content in 4-7 days.

I'll take the best image quality and feature set I can get, but if the camera doesn't allow me to get the best *content* in my work context and in the given time frame, then I'm making the wrong trades. It was different several years ago, but at this point, everything out there looks more than good enough to deliver meaningful and engaging content to an end client or audience. The Alexa LF is hands down a superior image, but when you get shoot 13 stops DR in v-gamut stabilized handheld at 5.7k60p internal, I'm not really worried about it anymore. But then, I'm also not working for producers demanding specs or working on teams with multi hundred thousand dollar budgets. I'm working for organizations that want people to either buy or cry. And they want to display a production value which conveys credibility. All these boxes are checked today, and the rest is just details.

Swanky AF is probably the final frontier for me at this point. The small Sony and Canon cameras with IBIS have my attention. That could make a big difference for me. But I'm not that worried about clean ISO25600 or 15 stops of DR or 8k/12k, it's nothing that gives me envy. I think it will be fun and nice to have when it trickles down into micro sized bodies but I'm not salivating over it, for me, it means more on a spec sheet than it does in the real world. I've been annoyed at gear for about 10 years for not having this or that, because those lacking features (High ISO, IBIS, Codecs, etc.) made a big and tangible difference to the final quality of my work, both in terms of content and image quality. But not anymore, most of this stuff now is just nice to haves - for me.

Well, I won't be giving up FF anytime soon, but I don't think I'll be giving up M43 anytime soon either. And I don't think I'll ever spring for LF, I don't think it's for me or my work even though it looks hot. YMMV of course... context is everything.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Panasonic is not ignoring AF. Thats why they keep trying to make it better. Thats why they put in a ton of work to add AI to help make it better. They are not just sitting there doing nothing.

I watched another video that stated Panasonic lenses will need their firmware updated to take full advantage of the new AF. Are the reviews out there doing that? I don't know. Some reviews are very impressed with the AF. Others find flaws. Perhaps we should wait for the final version of the camera firmware and lenses updated to make the most of it to really judge it.

We need to also be careful to not just assume it sucks because its not phase detect. DFD doesn't have to suck and a lot of times it can do very well. The video that mentioned updating lens firmware shot on the hood of a car using AF through the windshield and it was rock solid with no pulsing. Not sure why that wouldn't be manual focus but it was a test to se if it would work and it did.
Click to expand...

I've been doing a lot of reading, watching, digging. Lens selection and firmware matters. These AF videos are being tested on everything from a boosted Sigma 18-35 to m43 Olympus glass and old Panasonic lenses. The modern Lumix 10-25 lens has better AF from what I hear, especially on newest firmware. Also you need native Panasonic lenses to get the best performance I read, because it passes the DFD data.

The higher the FPS the better the AF performance. I get it, 24p is very important and so is a wide lens selection - but luckily for *me* at least, I do use a lot of 48p-60p and I do have a Lumix 10-25 so the AF I experience will probably be best case scenario for GH6 and that ain't half bad. I wouldn't choose the camera over a Sony/Canon if I was shopping first for AF, but I'm not (right now at least) and while I won't know until I do tests, if this opens up some new creative possibilities for me I'm happy. And I bet it will, and I bet it will do a pretty solid job for my needs until something better comes along.

And if it doesn't, I know where to find cameras that do, and I'm not limited to having to pick one camera, it's just a matter of if I want to pony up.
 
filmguy123 said:
I've been doing a lot of reading, watching, digging. Lens selection and firmware matters. These AF videos are being tested on everything from a boosted Sigma 18-35 to m43 Olympus glass and old Panasonic lenses. The modern Lumix 10-25 lens has better AF from what I hear, especially on newest firmware. Also you need native Panasonic lenses to get the best performance I read, because it passes the DFD data.

The higher the FPS the better the AF performance. I get it, 24p is very important and so is a wide lens selection - but luckily for *me* at least, I do use a lot of 48p-60p and I do have a Lumix 10-25 so the AF I experience will probably be best case scenario for GH6 and that ain't half bad. I wouldn't choose the camera over a Sony/Canon if I was shopping first for AF, but I'm not (right now at least) and while I won't know until I do tests, if this opens up some new creative possibilities for me I'm happy. And I bet it will, and I bet it will do a pretty solid job for my needs until something better comes along.

And if it doesn't, I know where to find cameras that do, and I'm not limited to having to pick one camera, it's just a matter of if I want to pony up.
Click to expand...

The same is true of DPAF on Canon. The cheaper lenses don't work as well as the $2,500 f2.8 zooms or fast L series primes. EF lenses adapted may not perform as fast either and 3rd party lenses from Tamron and Sigma may be slower. I may not be using DPAF on the R6 to its full potential either and yes it does mess up at times as well.

Lenses have motors in them to focus and only the most expensive native manufacture lenses have the best motors. Adapting lenses is awesome and typically works well but there is always some level of speed disadvantage. That was even true of 3rd party EF lenses on EF DSLR bodies. They got significantly better with the more modern lens designs but now its starting all over again with RF. Sigma and Tamron finally had EF all figured out but they have yet to make RF lenses and when they do they may not be as good as the higher end Canon lenses which I cannot afford.

so yes the lens will have a huge impact on how well the AF works on the GH6. Adapting a Sigma 18-35mm which is now a very old 3rd party lens design that isn't even a native EF lens is not going to be spectacular. It never was great on any adapted camera. Plus its older and likely not the best AF motor design out there anymore. If one wants the most accurate AF possible on the GH6 they will need to get a new nicer modern design from Panasonic. Not even Olympus will cut it. It will work fine but don't expect 100% perfection and speed. I sold all my old m43 lenses but maybe was good thing anyway. None of them were ever going to be great for AF on the GH6. None of them worked for dual IS either they were that old.

Maybe someday I will get a l series lens for Canon but not anytime soon. I just have to accept the slower DPAF for now and the occasional missed focus when it drifts off.

On yeah the adapter matters as well. If one absolutely wants to adapt electronic lenses to use on the GH6 at least get the Metabones. Viltrox is nice but their AF is nowhere near as good as Metabones. Speaking of Metabones I'm sure they will need to update the firmware as well to work better with the GH6. So any adapted lens review of the GH6 is likely very flawed right now. We are not even sure yet if thats possible or if the GH6 will need a new SpeedBooster that can perform better with the GH6 AF.

Way too early to pass judgement. What I have seen however I felt was super impressive. Then again I remember what the AF was like on the GH1 and compared to that the AF is mind blowingly superior now on the GH6.
 
Thomas it seems like you’d do really well with a GH6 + 10-25 lens, maybe a 25-50 as well if you use that setup. Wouldn’t be a bad trade from your old glass.

Besides, if one of the main advantages to m43 is small, light, compact then reducing an entire kit down to 1-2 lenses is a pretty sensible way to go anyway. And save the main lens library for larger FF lenses when you don’t need to be so compact.

I’m going to test drive this setup for a while. I may then downsize my m43 lens collection now that I’ve explored it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top