Panasonic 4K GH4 possibly coming next Spring...

To be a major success, I believe this camera needs the following:

10-bit codec/colour-space in a flat/log profile.

120FPS @ 1080P (or at least 72FPS/90FPS @ 1080P)

Focus-peaking.

XLR-inputs via battery-grip.

If Panasonic can deliver such features for the rumored price-range (sub $2000), this camera will stand out in a major way and be a huge success. If it is simply a GH3 that is capable of 4K, I believe it will be a niche product - most likely bought by those heavily invested in mFT glass.

Personally, if I was on the design team, other than making it a strictly "video only" camera, the first thing I would have done was create a 8MP mFT sensor with a base-ISO of 800/1600. I really wish Panasonic went with an 8MP sensor with a high base-ISO. Could have had a new low-light champion on our hands!

Anyway, guess we'll all find out what's what by the weekend.
 
hscully said:
Why would they release a DSLR whose secondary purpose is taking photographs? Why not just release a video camera? No OLPF == artifacts and still cameras cannot stand OLPFs that are aggressive enough for moving pictures, right?
Click to expand...

Two words : Soccer Moms
Anytime you see a sub $5000 hybrid, we are talking Amatuer and Soccer Mom capture. Soccer in Season and Travel during holidays - B'day parties and Weddings whenever.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
Two words : Soccer Moms
Click to expand...
And thanks to all those lovely soccer moms video will eventually go the way stills did: Into an undistinguishable zone between pros and amateurs where professional technology only provides an advantage in extreme situations.
 
Two words : Soccer Moms
Anytime you see a sub $5000 hybrid, we are talking Amatuer and Soccer Mom capture. Soccer in Season and Travel during holidays - B'day parties and Weddings whenever.
Click to expand...

Really? Absolute nonsense. Tell that to all the people here using the GH3 for their projects.
 
It is a hybrid and designed to handle both very well. I'm tried of people crapping on the GH3 when it comes to stills.
Click to expand...

I own the GH3 and the stills are pretty good but the only time I would use it for a job is in an emergency! Nikon for stills, GH3 for video. No other way for me. Micro 4/3 will never become a favorite of professional photographers for stills.
 
John Caballero said:
I own the GH3 and the stills are pretty good but the only time I would use it for a job is in an emergency! Nikon for stills, GH3 for video. No other way for me. Micro 4/3 will never become a favorite of professional photographers for stills.
Click to expand...

Again not true. There are some professionals who use it. If not who the heck would be buying the high end Olympus m43 cameras. Nobody uses those for video but yet they sell as well if not better than the GH3. Olympus makes some amazing m43 glass and yet the GH3 is not their only target. They are thinking of their own high end cameras for stills shooters. Look at reviews on Amazon and B&H for any of the higher end Olympus lenses and most of the reviews are from professional photographers and not professional video users. There are a lot of professional photographers who love m43 and are stunned by how well they perform given the size and weight. Great for when you just cannot haul around a ton of gear or are not obsessed with razor thin depth of field.

Saying a pro cannot shoot stills with a GH3 is like saying none of us are pros for shooting video with the GH3 because it isn't an ARRI.
 
If you don't need extremely shallow DOF or superb low light capabilities (or shutter speeds) m43 will be fine. Also for pros. It even might be an advantage to carry around a smaller camera that can focus everything that's in the frame. Depends on the job.
 
joe 1008 said:
If you don't need extremely shallow DOF or superb low light capabilities (or shutter speeds) m43 will be fine. Also for pros. It even might be an advantage to carry around a smaller camera that can focus everything that's in the frame. Depends on the job.
Click to expand...
Or just use Speedbsooter and VOILA! One stop faster and less crop factor than Super 35mm. MFT now seems like more of an advantage now thanks to Metabones. :D
 
Simon Shasha said:
If it is simply a GH3 that is capable of 4K, I believe it will be a niche product - most likely bought by those heavily invested in mFT glass.

Personally, if I was on the design team, other than making it a strictly "video only" camera, the first thing I would have done was create a 8MP mFT sensor with a base-ISO of 800/1600. I really wish Panasonic went with an 8MP sensor with a high base-ISO.
Click to expand...
But use an 8megapixel sensor and you effectively ARE making it a video only camera - or at least making it severely disadvantaged in the world of stills camera, far softer than the norm. It's possible to do such a thing - but such would be far more niche than what they are doing at the moment with the GH2 and GH3.

It is THEORETICALLY possible to get the best of both worlds, and there is evidence that Sony may have managed it with the processing in the RX10. It's possible Panasonic may be about to show something similar.

Until now, the problem has been reading all the photosites in a still camera sensor at frame rate, and processing and downconverting well without too much expense and power consumption. But it's been a problem of technology, not fundamental physics, and that's been true for all manufacturers.

Any sensor needs an OLPF which will cut down detail finer than the photosite spacing. But in previous hybrid stills/video designs it's been necessary to consider the photosites in groups or clusters due to the readout method in video mode - and to combat aliasing they would really need a much coarser OLPF in line with the group spacing. Which would make the camera useless for stills......

But the problem goes away if the full sensor can be read and properly deBayered. The extra low pass filtering can (theoretically!) be done in the downconversion stage mathematically - how good it is being solely dependent on how good the processing is.
 
Thomas Smet said:
John Caballero said:
I own the GH3 and the stills are pretty good but the only time I would use it for a job is in an emergency! Nikon for stills, GH3 for video. No other way for me. Micro 4/3 will never become a favorite of professional photographers for stills.
Click to expand...
Again not true. There are some professionals who use it. If not who the heck would be buying the high end Olympus m43 cameras. Nobody uses those for video but yet they sell as well if not better than the GH3. Olympus makes some amazing m43 glass and yet the GH3 is not their only target. They are thinking of their own high end cameras for stills shooters. Look at reviews on Amazon and B&H for any of the higher end Olympus lenses and most of the reviews are from professional photographers and not professional video users. There are a lot of professional photographers who love m43 and are stunned by how well they perform given the size and weight. Great for when you just cannot haul around a ton of gear or are not obsessed with razor thin depth of field.

Saying a pro cannot shoot stills with a GH3 is like saying none of us are pros for shooting video with the GH3 because it isn't an ARRI.
Click to expand...
I second that. I am one of them. My 2013 photo book contains more than 9/10 shot on 4/3" against 1/10 shot with other formats, FF35 included. GH series are even my favorite acquisition device and for stills photography.

Moreover, I will even add something more on topic: first time I shot with one of the 3x GH1 I still use nowadays, I became angry with such kind of remarks on the 4/3" format, exactly because of a lot of photography is much harder to be done on a larger format. After bits of misinformation I had read in these same boards. At times, people from video think they know everything about any level of shooting and that's can simply be misleading. That said, long life for 4/3" format as professional and artistic route! I'll be one of those to order the new GH babe... (E. :-)
 
John Caballero said:
Exactly. Some.
Click to expand...

So whats your point exactly? Just because not everybody uses it doesn't make it bad. You said a pro would never use m43 for shooting stills. That is a pretty negative blanket statement with no data to back it up. How much of the lack of use of m43 in the professional market has to do with quality however? A lot of stills shooters are pretty deep into the format they have worked with for years. A nikon user tends to have a lot of Nikon glass and wouldn't just jump ship for a new camera. Same with a Canon user. Even on the video front where the GH2 and GH3 have certain clear quality edges over some Canon and Nikon cameras it struggles just as much to get market share. The same "only some of DSLR shooters use m43" argument could be made for video as well. Largely the DSLR video/film market is owned by Canon regardless of how many camera shootouts, tests and reviews talk about how amazing the GH2/GH3 is. Why? Part hype, part brand loyalty, part it is what their friends/teachers/boss use and finally part what gear they already own.
 
Thomas Smet said:
So whats your point exactly? Just because not everybody uses it doesn't make it bad. You said a pro would never use m43 for shooting stills. That is a pretty negative blanket statement with no data to back it up. How much of the lack of use of m43 in the professional market has to do with quality however? A lot of stills shooters are pretty deep into the format they have worked with for years. A nikon user tends to have a lot of Nikon glass and wouldn't just jump ship for a new camera. Same with a Canon user. Even on the video front where the GH2 and GH3 have certain clear quality edges over some Canon and Nikon cameras it struggles just as much to get market share. The same "only some of DSLR shooters use m43" argument could be made for video as well. Largely the DSLR video/film market is owned by Canon regardless of how many camera shootouts, tests and reviews talk about how amazing the GH2/GH3 is. Why? Part hype, part brand loyalty, part it is what their friends/teachers/boss use and finally part what gear they already own.
Click to expand...
Thomas I think maybe you read John wrong. I think he's been a proponent for the Ghxs since day one. His comment seems more sarcastic in nature ( I think). He's from New York. So all is forgiven. :)
 
pulpfiction007 said:
http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-a-couple-of-gh-4k-camera-specs/

A couple of specs in, 200 Mbps for 4K.....which equals the 50 Mbps the GH3 has for HD. So far, still sounding like they made a 4K GH3. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Codecs never work 1:1 like that. Especially the IPB type of codecs with motion prediction. Plus what exactly is wrong with the 50mbps on the GH3? It is actually pretty difficult to break the codec at that bitrate. Not saying it can't be broken but it is pretty difficult. 50mbps for MPEG2 is even considered good enough for broadcast in many circles and 50mbps H264 blows that away easily. Well except for the 4:2:2 part of course.
 
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the GH3. Just that I don't need or have the computer for 4K...so if it is merely a GH3 with 4K, I'll get the GH3 when the price drops. Others may want the 4K, ...that's perfectly fine too. ;)
 
Every bit of info that comes in strengthens the feeling that Panasonic is poised to improve its strong points (resolution), while ignoring its Achilles heel (DR).
 
So the latest rumors (from 43rumors) are now

- G4K has focus peaking
- There is an attachable XLR adapter
- H264 codec all intra that give 422 color all intra in 100 mbps. To record this you will need to buy the new P2 Micro card in SD shape made by Panasonic (see image on top)
- it will be switch-able from 4K and 1080P with various frame rates (can shoot 120fps at 1080P for example)
Click to expand...

That sounds good. But no mention if that 4:2:2 is 10 bit. Which I seriously doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top